Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas Anand David vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38444 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. VIKAS ANAND DAVID S/O SHRI LUKSAN
DAVID, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS O-42-C OLD
VIJAY NAGAR RANJHI JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VISHAL ANAND DAVID S/O SHRI LUKSAN
DAVID, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 42-C, OLD
VIJAY NAGAR RANJHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VISHNU CHANDRA DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
P.S. POLICE STAION MAHILA THANA
JABALPUR, DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANUGRAH BHARAT D/O SAMUEL BHARAT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND
TEHSIL BARGI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GAJENDRA PARASHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.25/2019 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Jabalpur as well as R.C.T.No.2369/2019 pending in the
court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur.
2. The prosecution story in short is that respondent No.2 lodged an FIR
alleging that she got married with applicant No.1 on 24.1.2019 as per
Christian rights and rituals. By profession, she is an advocate. Prior to
her marriage, the applicant and his elder brother Vishal has suppressed
the fact that they are complete Christians and follow the Christian
rituals because after her marriage, when she reached her matrimonial
house then her Grah Pravesh rituals were performed as per Hindu
rights and rituals. Right from day one the behavior of applicant No.1
was not good and cordial towards her and on the very same day, he
told that he did not want to marry her. However, under pressure of her
brother, sister and mother, he has performed marriage. It is alleged
that right from day one, applicant No.1 started harassing her mentally
by saying that she should not have brought any articles in dowry and
he performed marriage with her only for money. Accordingly, he
asked complainant to bring an amount of Rs.5 Lacs. When she
refused to accept the demand made by applicant No.1, then applicant
No.1 and his family members misbehaved with her, and also extended
threat that they would make her life miserable. Both the applicants
were insisting that complainant should have brought cash amount.
They also used to misbehave with her in front of their parents. She
stayed for five days in her matrimonial house but despite the fact that it
was winter season, no warm clothes were provided to her and when she
demanded woolen clothes then she was scolded that she should bring
the same from her parents' home. She was not keeping well but neither
her husband took care of her nor her in-laws. No treatment was
provided to her. All the jewelry of the respondent no.2 was taken away
by her husband and when she objected to it then he abused her with
filthy language and also extended a threat that she will be buried and
nobody would be able to find out her whereabouts. When they were
celebrating the birthday of her sister-in-law (Nanad), then she was
compelled to dance in front of various persons and when she objected
to it, they quarreled with her and also extended a threat of ousting her
from matrimonial house. When she was going to her parental house
for the first time, then applicant no.1 took away all her jewelry and
money which she had got in marriage and also insisted that she should
come back along with an amount of Rs.5 Lacs. When applicant no.1
came to take her back, even then he raised all sorts of disputes and
controversy on account of demand of dowry. However, the matter was
pacified by her parents. Immediately after coming back to matrimonial
house, her husband quarreled and misbehaved with her. Her mother-
in-law also called the applicant no.2 by insisting that complainant is
creating all sorts of nuisance in the house. Then applicant no.2 came
and he also scolded her. When she objected to it, then he also
extended threat that she would be killed and buried in the house and
nobody would be able to find out her whereabouts.
3. On the first day of marriage, applicant no.1 had told her that he is in
love with sombodyelse but he has performed marriage under the
pressure of his family members. She was also defamed and was
branded characterless on the allegations that she has some affair with
her family friend. She has been defamed in the entire Christian
community and because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry she was
returned back to her parental house and in spite of multiple efforts
neither applicant no.1 is picking her phone call nor responding to her
messages. In spite of that when she tried to continue with the
relationship, the applicants and her in-laws refused to allow her to stay
in her matrimonial house and extended threat that complainant can do
whatever she wants to do. Accordingly, it was alleged that applicants
have harassed her physically and mentally for demand of Rs.5 Lacs
and although the applicant No.1 himself has love affair but he has
defamed the respondent no.2 in the Christian community by branding
her as a characterless lady.
4. Challenging the FIR lodged by the complainant it is submitted by
counsel for the applicants that respondent no.2 had relationship with
one Ashish Patel and the family members of the respondent no.2 were
aware of this fact. They had assured the applicants that they would
convince her and send her back to her matrimonial house. When the
applicants did not receive any information from the in-laws then
applicant no.1 and his family members went to the parental house of
respondent no.2 along with Faster Shri Lalit Solomen. In spite of
hours of discussion in presence of Faster Shri Lalit Solomen, the
complainant clearly stated that she is not interested in staying with the
applicant and would not return to her matrimonial house. In spite of
best efforts of applicant no.1, the respondent no.2 has not returned
back. Accordingly, applicant no.1 moved Parivar Paramarsh Kendra
on 28.3.2019. The Counselor of the Kendra also tried his level best to
convince the complainant to move ahead in life after forgetting her past
specifically when applicant no.1 is ready and willing to stay with her.
However, on 15.4.2019 she clearly refused to stay with the applicant
and expressed her intention to lodge FIR. There was no occasion for
the applicants to demand dowry. There is a long history of misuse of
the provisions of section 498-A IPC. The allegations made in the FIR
are false.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant.
6. Before considering the allegations made in the FIR, this Court would
like to consider the scope of interference of this Court in exercise of
power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the impugned order and other material
placed on record, we are of the view that the High
Court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction conferred
under Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the proceedings.
Even before the investigation is completed by the
investigating agency, the High Court entertained the
writ petition, and by virtue of interim order granted by
the High Court, further investigation was stalled.
Having regard to the allegations made by the
appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by
clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has
blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd respondent
has continued to interfere by calling Shoukin Malik or
not are the matters for investigation. In view of the
serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the
view that the High Court should not have made a
roving inquiry while considering the application filed
under Section 482 CrPC. Though the learned counsel
have made elaborate submissions on various
contentious issues, as we are of the view that any
observation or findings by this Court, will affect the
investigation and trial, we refrain from recording any
findings on such issues. From a perusal of the order of
the High Court, it is evident that the High Court has got
carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at,
between the parties, and recorded a finding that the
physical relationship of the appellant with the 2nd
respondent was consensual. When it is the allegation of
the appellant, that such document itself is obtained
under threat and coercion, it is a matter to be
investigated. Further, the complaint of the appellant
about interference by the 2nd respondent by calling
Shoukin Malik and further interference is also a matter
for investigation. By looking at the contents of the
complaint and the serious allegations made against 2nd
respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has
committed error in quashing the proceedings.
(Underline supplied)
8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin
& Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:-
"7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court
at a stage when the investigation was yet to be
completed, is completely incorrect and uncalled for
..........."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew
our attention to the same decision which is relied upon
in the impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this
Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any
specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to
when the power under Section 482 CrPC could be or is
to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an
exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such
power could be exercised. In para 103 of the said
judgment, this Court, however, hastened to add that as
a note of caution it must be stated that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be
justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the first information report or in
the complaint and that the extraordinary or the inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of
Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :
5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court
when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding
will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither
would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on
which the accused relies. However an exception has
been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v.
Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to
the effect that in an appropriate case where the
document relied upon is a public document or where
veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the
same can be considered.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty
Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation
of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that the
Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts
and circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section
482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure
without full-fledged enquiry.
19. Though the High Court may exercise its power
relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For
example, where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused or
allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence or do not disclose commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused or where there
is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of
the Code or in any other enactment under which a
criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to
show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused due to private and personal
grudge, the High Court may step in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 are wide, however, such power
requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference
must be on sound principles and the inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set
out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it
is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :
17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that
where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case
against the accused, the High Court would be justified
in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held
that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR
and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose any offence and make out a case against
the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing
the proceedings.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :
17. After perusing the impugned order and on
hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the
impugned order passed by the High Court is not
sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482
CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on
several disputed facts and allowed the petition.
Defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact
that the High Court, in this case, went into the most
minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the
respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High
Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High
Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken
cognizance of by the competent court, is completely
incorrect and uncalled for."
14. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar
Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has
held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the
stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the
case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8........At this stage, the High Court ought not to
be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which
the trial court would do in the course of the criminal
trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High
Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the
exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of
CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the
allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not
expected to be an encyclopedia..........."
15. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in the cases of
Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678,
Teeja Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221,
State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC
547, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600,
Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336,
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460,
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437, M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar
Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682.
16. Thus, it is clear that in case if uncontroverted allegations do not make
out an offence only, then this Court can quash the proceedings. The
defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
This Court cannot adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations
made in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are required to be
taken as gospel truth and only then this Court can quash the FIR if
uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence.
17. If the allegations made in the FIR are considered then it is clear that
there is a specific allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lacs. From
the FIR it is clear that mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 is also
alive but she is not being prosecuted. There was no reason for the
respondent no.2 not to allege against her own mother-in-law. Why she
has confined her allegations to her husband and elder brother-in-law is
another aspect, which indicates that respondent no.2 has not leveled
exaggerated allegations.
18. Be that whatever it may be.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has
held as under:-
"10. The law relating to quashing is well
settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not
make out any case or if it can be held that there
is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can
be quashed but if there is a triable case the court
does not go into reliability or otherwise of the
version or the counter-version. In matrimonial
cases, the courts have to be cautious when
omnibus allegations are made particularly
against relatives who are not generally
concerned with the affairs of the couple. We
may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing
with the issue.
11. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460
: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ)
687, it was observed : (SCC pp. 482-84, para
27)
"27.1. Though there are no limits of
the powers of the Court under
Section 482 of the Code but the
more the power, the more due care
and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. The power
of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in
terms of Section 228 of the Code
should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the
test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made
from the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith
prima facie establish the offence or
not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person
can ever reach such a conclusion
and where the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not
unduly interfere. No meticulous
examination of the evidence is
needed for considering whether the
case would end in conviction or not
at the stage of framing of charge or
quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such
power is absolutely essential to
prevent patent miscarriage of
justice and for correcting some
grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate
courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere,
at the threshold, to throttle the
prosecution in exercise of its
inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express
legal bar enacted in any of the
provisions of the Code or any
specific law in force to the very
initiation or institution and
continuance of such criminal
proceedings, such a bar is intended
to provide specific protection to an
accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to
balance the freedom of a person
and the right of the complainant or
prosecution to investigate and
prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court
cannot be permitted to be used for
an oblique or ultimate/ulterior
purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made
and as they appeared from the
record and documents annexed
therewith to predominantly give
rise and constitute a 'civil wrong'
with no 'element of criminality'
and does not satisfy the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence,
the court may be justified in
quashing the charge. Even in such
cases, the court would not embark
upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.
27.9. Another very significant
caution that the courts have to
observe is that it cannot examine
the facts, evidence and materials on
record to determine whether there
is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a
conviction; the court is concerned
primarily with the allegations taken
as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence and, if so, is it
an abuse of the process of court
leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is
the court called upon to hold a full-
fledged enquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the
investigating agencies to find out
whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise
to a civil claim and also amount to
an offence, merely because a civil
claim is maintainable, does not
mean that a criminal complaint
cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 228 and/or under
Section 482, the Court cannot take
into consideration external
materials given by an accused for
reaching the conclusion that no
offence was disclosed or that there
was possibility of his acquittal. The
Court has to consider the record
and documents annexed therewith
by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an
exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is
even broadly satisfied, the Court
should be more inclined to permit
continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial
stage. The Court is not expected to
marshal the records with a view to
decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is
an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet,
report under Section 173(2) of the
Code, suffers from fundamental
legal defects, the Court may be well
within its jurisdiction to frame a
charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of
the above, where the Court finds
that it would amount to abuse of
process of the Code or that the
interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge.
The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and
substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the
courts exist.
[Ref. State of State of
W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha,
(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri)
283, Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC
692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4
SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36,
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal
Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P. , Ajay
Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3
SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
703, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1400, State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC
705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497, Ganesh
Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa,
(1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
634, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque,
(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
283, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.,
(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
615, Shakson Belthissor v. State of
Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412, V.V.S.
Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 356, Chunduru Siva Ram
Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu,
(2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1297, Sheonandan
Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1
SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri)
82, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 192, Lalmuni
Devi v. State of Bihar, (2001) 2
SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275, M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8
SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19, Savita v. State of Rajasthan,
(2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC
(Cri) 571 and S.M. Datta v. State of
Gujarat, (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S)
1201.]
27.16. These are the principles
which individually and preferably
cumulatively (one or more) be
taken into consideration as precepts
to exercise of extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code by
the High Court. Where the factual
foundation for an offence has been
laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to
quash the proceedings even on the
premise that one or two ingredients
have not been stated or do not
appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial compliance with the
requirements of the offence."
* * *
14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot
be held that even if the allegations are taken as
proved no case is made out. There are
allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents
for harassing the complainant which forced her
to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she
continues to be separated from the matrimonial
home as she apprehends lack of security and
safety and proper environment in the
matrimonial home. The question whether the
appellant has in fact been harassed and treated
with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage,
it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus,
quashing of proceedings before the trial is not
permissible.
15. The decisions referred to in the judgment of
the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu
Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286, the parents of the
husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had
died and main allegations were only against
him. This Court found no cogent material
against the other accused. In Manoj Mahavir
Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar, (2010)
10 SCC 673 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 94, the
appellant before this Court was the brother of
the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged
the case against the accused for theft of
jewellery during pendency of earlier Section
498-A IPC case. This Court found the said case
to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of
U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ)
212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120, case was against
brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had
taken place between the parties. The said cases
neither purport to nor can be read as laying
down any inflexible rule beyond the principles
of quashing which have been mentioned above
and applied to the facts of the cases therein
which are distinguishable. In the present case
the factual matrix is different from the said
cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot
be held that there is no triable case against the
accused."
20. Thus, it is held that un-controverted allegations made in the FIR do
make out a cognizable offence. There are specific allegations against
applicant no.2 also. Whether those allegations are correct, credible or
reliable, cannot be judged by this Court at this stage. Even otherwise,
this application has been filed merely on the ground of defences which
are required to be proved by the applicants during the trial.
21. As no case is made out warranting interference, application fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2024.03.05 18:01:19
+05'30'
HS
