Allahabad High Court

Ranjeet Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30961
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6896 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No.204A of 2024, dated 09.10.2024 and cognizance / summoning order dated 09.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.255 of 2025 (State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Etawah, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C./J.M. (CAW), Etawah.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 20.06.2024 at about 15:54 hrs by opposite party no.2 against four named accused including the applicants, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with son of applicants on 22.01.2024. The father of opposite party no.2 spent about 10 lakhs in the marriage and fridge, television, washing machine, sofa, bed etc. as well as expensive gifts were also given. Immediately after the marriage, all the in-laws family members passed remarks and taunted for additional dowry and the opposite party No.2 was mentally and physically harassed for the aforesaid purpose. She was also assaulted by legs and shoes. When opposite party no.2 shared the aforesaid conduct of the applicants with her father, he tried to convince in-laws family of opposite party no.2. Despite the aforesaid request of father of opposite party no.2, the conduct of in-laws family members did not change. It has further been alleged that on 15.03.2024, the husband of opposite party no.2, namely, Abhishek, father-in-law, mother-in-law (applicants herein) and sister-in-law, namely, Ritu Devi threw opposite party no.2 out of the house after beating her. They also took away all jewellery, i.e. four gold rings, four bangles, one gold necklace and one gold chain from her. The opposite party no.2 managed to reach her father's place. Thereafter, the father of opposite party no.2 alongwith his relatives made all efforts to amicably settle the matter. The opposite party no.2 alongwith his daughter, Aradhana and few relatives went to the applicants' house where they were assaulted by husband of opposite party no.2 as well as applicants and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2. When sister of opposite party no.2 tried to convince, she was beaten by the husband of opposite party no.2, Abhishek in which she sustained injuries. Abhishek tried to throttle her neck by Dupatta with intention to kill her. The relatives somehow managed to save the persons. The aforesaid persons were threatened by the in-laws family of opposite party no.2 stating that in case she returned, they would have to face dire consequences. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act after which the applicants have been summoned on 09.01.2025. Hence the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 against whom there are general, vague and omnibus allegations. Emphasizing upon the statement of independent witness; Abdul Rashid as well as other witnesses, he states that all the allegations are against the husband, against whom it has been alleged that he has assaulted the opposite party no.2. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that the disputes were between husband and wife and no specific allegation of involvement of the applicants in the aforesaid dispute is there. Emphasizing upon Page 50 of the application, he further submits that for the alleged incident dated 19.06.2024, an NCR has been lodged by the husband on 20.06.2024. Thus the present FIR has been lodged on the same day, i.e. 20.06.2024 subsequent to the NCR lodged by son of applicants as a counterblast in order to exert pressure and wreak vengeance. He further submits that the applicant nos.1&2 being 73 and 68 years old persons cannot participate in any such incident or altercation with the family members of opposite party no.2. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted in the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, which are prima facie made out on the basis of version of FIR as well as charge sheet witnesses. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 as a counterblast to the NCR for the incident dated 19.06.2024, he submits that there are injury report as well as the fact that NCR has been lodged for the same incident proves the incident wherein injuries have been sustained by family members of opposite party no.2. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the aged person could not have participated in such an incident is concerned, he submits that this fact has to be seen at the stage of trial. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-

(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,

(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,

(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.10.2024 and summoning order dated 09.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 4.3.2025

Jitendra/-