Allahabad High Court
Anil Seth And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32987
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7386 of 2025
Applicant :- Anil Seth And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Rama Kant Gupta
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 dated 05.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 27.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2566 of 2025 (State Vs. Anil Seth and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.208 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 21.06.2023 at about 19:40 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against six named accused out of which five have approached this Court, whereas husband is in jail. The allegations in the FIR are that marriage of son of applicant no.1 was solemnized with daughter of opposite party no.2 giving two lakhs rupees, jewellery as well as other gifts, however, additional dowry demand of Rs.5 lakhs was raised for which daughter of opposite party no.2 was tortured mentally and physically. Proper treatment was not provided to her in the hospital and she expired. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants on 05.02.2022 pursuant to which the applicants have been summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. The daughter of opposite party no.2 was at her parents' place when she fell, due to which she sustained injuries. She was admitted in the hospital by her brother, therefore, the applicants cannot be held guilty or responsible for her death.
He further submits that she was suffering from some ailments and treatment was being provided to her. She always used to stay at her parents' place. The family of applicants had gathered to attend marriage at her place and therefore, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Emphasizing upon the absence of applicant no.4, who is married sister-in-law, he states that her involvement in the incident is doubtful. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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 of 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, charge sheet has been submitted under the relevant sections against the applicants. It is admitted case that there was a marriage when the applicants' family gathered, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants were not responsible for the death of the deceased. From the postmortem report, the cause of death is coma as a result of head injury and there are several injuries on the body of the deceased. From the site plan also it is clear that the deceased was at her in-laws place at the time of death. The contention raised by counsel for the applicants regarding the absence of applicant no.4 is not proved by any document placed on records. He further submits that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage and the cause of her death is unnatural and there are allegations of dowry demand against the applicants. 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 05.02.2024 and summoning order dated 27.01.2025 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 :- 6.3.2025
Jitendra/-
