Allahabad High Court
Puneet Taneja And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37629
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26839 of 2023
Applicant :- Puneet Taneja And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ali,Sakshi Jaiswal,Shad Khan,Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.H. Vashishtha
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicants. Mr. P.H. Vashishtha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 03.08.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 11.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly and the entire proceedings of Case No.90/2023, (State Vs. Puneet Taneja and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.0092 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Bareilly.
Brief facts of the case are; an FIR was lodged on 16.03.2022 at 17:03 hours, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, against five named accused and one unknown, with the allegations that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 02.05.2019 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Rs.30,00,000/- was spent in marriage by parents of opposite party no.2. When the opposite party no.2 reached her in-laws' house, she came to know that her husband was already living in a live-in-relationship with one Sikha Gupta. Sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 was mediator in the friendship of husband of opposite party no.2 and Sikha Gupta. When opposite party no.2 objected the aforesaid, alleged accused persons assaulted her and she was mentally and physically tortured. They raised additional dowry demand of one Honda City Car and Rs.10/- Lakh. Other details of harassment are mentioned in the FIR. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on 03.08.2022 against the applicants husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act. Thereafter, applicants have been summoned. Hence the present application.
Grounds as taken in the application shows that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. Applicant no.2 is an old widow against whom there is no specific allegations regarding harassment or additional dowry demand. It appears that earlier request was made by learned counsel for the applicants to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre as there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties, as also averred in paragraph-19 of the application. Therefore, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre. As per Mediation Centre report dated 16.02.2024, mediation proceedings were completed but the parties could not arrive at any agreement. Several other grounds have been taken in the application on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. In view of above, cognizance/summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in filing of charge sheet as well as cognizance order. He further submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. All the other grounds taken in the application relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said that at this stage no offence has been committed by the applicants.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the grounds taken in the application 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 grounds 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, cognizance 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 grounds taken in the application by 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,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
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 entire proceeding along with charge-sheet as well as cognizance order of the aforesaid case is 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 :- 17.3.2025
Rahul.
