Prithvi Chand & Another vs State Of H.P.& Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3566 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 332 of 2019 Reserved on: 16th July, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 5th August, 2021.

    Prithvi Chand & Another                                                ...Petitioners.





                                   Versus

    State of H.P.& Others                                                 ...Respondents.
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 NO
    For the petitioner     r:      Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
    For the respondents :          Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Addl. Advocate General,
                                   with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate

                                   General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
                                   respondents No.1 to 4.
                                   Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent
                                   No.5.


                            THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
        FIR No. Dated           Police Station                      Sections
        129/2018 10.05.2018     Hamirpur, District Hamirpur         498-A & 120-B IPC




    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Seeking quashing of FIR captioned above, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant-5th respondent, have come up before this Court under Section 482,

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Facts necessary to decide the present petition are that on 10th May 2018, 5th respondent-Anju Kumari gave a written complaint to SHO of the aforesaid Police Station. She alleged that on 20th March 2017, her marriage with Ravi Kumar (son of petitioner) was performed as per Hindu rites. She lived with her husband only for five days, and during this period, they cohabited and established sexual relations. She stated that at that time, she could not make out that Ravi Kumar and his parents are cheating on her by this marriage. After realizing the entire episode, she feels that Ravi Kumar and her parents had solemnized the marriage intending to cheat her.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

After five days of the wedding, Ravi Kumar left for Australia and stated that he would join the job. In his absence, Prithvi Chand and Prakash Devi started taunting and troubling her. During the absence of Ravi Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-

.

in-law started taunting her so that she, on her own, leaves their house. They started

building pressure upon her to hand over her land to them under the pretext that they need to construct a house over it. They also started manipulating and instigating her

son, born out of her previous marriage. She informed the Panchayat and told them that now they are not telling their son's address and phone number (husband of the complainant). After that, they removed her from their house and now living in Delhi. They keep on talking to their son and do not reveal his number to the complainant.

Her husband, Ravi, also does not call her. Whenever she visits her in-law's house, her father-in-law and mother-in-law threatened her and levelled false allegations against her. When she stayed in her marital home, her father-in-law and mother-in-

law made phone calls and threatened her. She also stated that her husband had not

given any maintenance expenditure, forcing her to sustain with incredible difficulty. Despite various opportunities, her husband is not taking her call and, on his own, not calling her back. She stated that she fully believes that the accused persons

performed the marriage intending to deprive her of her property. Based on such allegations, the police registered the FIR mentioned above.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

3. The complainant herself stated that her husband, Ravi Kumar, is not giving any

money, and due to which she is unable to sustain herself. It means that she is not a wealthy lady. The crux of allegations leveled against the petitioner's father-in-law

and mother-in-law are that they have solemnized marriage intending to grab her property. In the complaint, the complainant does not even hint about the property, which she owns, or its value. On the contrary, her allegations that she is sustaining with great difficulty contradict her stand. As per the complainant's averments in the FIR, the wedding had taken place on 20th March 2017, and after five days, Ravi Kumar had left her. She also states that she is residing with her parents. The allegations that her father-in-law and mother-in-law are not giving the phone number of Ravi Kumar would not make out an offense of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC or of a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The allegations against the petitioners are too general to make out any case. Even if the entire allegations in the

FIR are taken on its face value, still no case is made out against the petitioners. It appears that the complainant, whose second marriage also failed because her husband deserted her, also tried to involve her father-in-law and mother-in-law by

.

leveling allegations. Still, such allegations do not make out any case under Section

498-A and 120-B IPC.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC:

4. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that [30] "It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry

harassment are also a matter of serious concern. [32] Unfortunately, at the time of

filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. [33]. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the

innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not

uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in

dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's

close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."

5. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Para 28, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji

.

Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be

constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the

complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are

concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled." r STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:

6. In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not

necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The Court holds, "...This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient

material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic

earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of

taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under section 482 of the Code can be exercised.

7. In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the High Court need not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate.

.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON JURISPRUDENCE OF QUASHING:

8. The law is almost settled by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that when the FIR and the investigation do not make out any case or the prosecution is inherently and patently illegal, and the matters that fulfill the criteria for quashing, the High Court resorting to S. 482 CrPC can quash such FIR and consequent proceedings. In R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, a

three-member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, "[6]. ...It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an

accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would

govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High

Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings

against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case, it would be legitimate

for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may

.

also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the

accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to

prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support

the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not

be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that

on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal

proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen

Empress, ILR 26 Cal 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR 54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), NripendraBhusan Roy v. GobinaBandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924

Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v. Sivarama Subramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 : (AIR 1925 Mad 39)."

9. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692, a three judges' bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[7]. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal

prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

.

CONCLUSION:

10. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter.

11. An analysis of the entire allegations and the investigation does not contain legally admissible evidence and thus, does not make out any prima facie case against the petitioners.

12. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

13. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh,

2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was

already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet.

Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would

automatically stands vitiated."

14. Given above, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed qua the petitioners, and all the consequential proceedings qua the petitioners are also quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly cancelled and discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

15. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

Copy Dasti.

                                                                    (Anoop Chitkara),
    August 05, 2021(ps).                                                Judge.