Unknown vs Harish Pal And Others"
2021 Latest Caselaw 647 UK

                                  RESERVED JUDGMENT
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

   CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.416 OF 2014
(under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973)

Between:

Smt. Anandi Pal and another                       ......Applicants

and

State of Uttarakhand and others                  ......Respondents


Counsel for the applicants     : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
                                Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravi
                                Kandpal,      learned     Advocate
                                holding brief of Mr. A.K. Arya,
                                learned       Advocate.

Counsel for the respondent :    Mr. A.K. Shah, learned A.G.A.
Nos. 1 & 2/State                and     Mr.   Scahin      Panwar,
                                learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for the respondent :    Mr. Mohd. Azmeen, learned
No.3                            Advocate holding brief of Mr.
                                Lalit     Sharma,         learned
                                Advocate .

                                Reserved on :19.02.2020
                                Delivered on : 04.03.2021


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The applicants-accused persons invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to quash the Charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 588 of 2013, registered with Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital and cognizance order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.586 of 2014, "State vs. Harish Pal and others", under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 05.12.2013 at 17.10 hrs, an FIR was registered at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital against the applicants along with the co-accused Harish Pal to the effect that the marriage of the informant Smt. Mamta, the respondent No.3, was solemnized with the co-accused Harish Pal, brother of the applicant No.1 and son of the applicant No.2, on 25.04.2002. They harassed the informant Smt. Mamta, by saying her that her parents had not given anything in dowry. They started taunting and torturing her continuously and demanded five lakhs in dowry. She further stated in the FIR that her husband Harish Pal has got his second marriage with Mamta daughter of Joga Ram when the demand for dowry was not met.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant No.1 Smt. Anandi Pal, sister-in-law of the respondent No.3, was around 48-49 years old at the time the FIR was lodged; she was married in Moradabad; she was posted as a Principal at Government Primary School, Gaula Par, Haldwani, District Nainital; she was temporarily residing in village Daharia, Mitravihar, Haldwani, District Nainital; the applicant No.2, Smt. Rampyari Devi, aged about 78-79 years, was residing with the applicant No.1; the marriage of the respondent No.3 took place with Harish Pal, brother of the applicant No.1, and son of the applicant No.2, in the year, 2002; the period of 11 years has elapsed and there was no complaint from the side of the respondent No.3 against the applicants; the marriage between the respondent No.3 and the co-accused Harish Pal had taken place at temple; there were neither any demand of dowry at the time of the marriage nor there any demand of dowry from the side of the applicants ever has been made; since the applicants were living separately, they had nothing to do with the life of Harish Pal and the respondent No.3; the impugned false FIR has been lodged against the applicants after 11 years of the marriage of the respondent No.3; the Investigating Officer did not conduct fair investigation and filed a false charge-sheet against the applicants.

5. Mr. A.K. Shah, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that though the marriage of the respondent No.3 was solemnized in a temple but the applicant No.1 used to come frequently to the house of the respondent No.3; the applicants demanded dowry and harassed the respondent No.3 in connection with the demand of dowry; these facts are fully corroborated by the statement of the witness Smt.

Meera Devi, sister of the respondent No.3, recorded under Section 161 of the Code; the statement of a witness, namely, Smt. Shashi wife of Manoj Sahu, a neighbour of the husband of the respondent No.3, was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, therein, she stated that on 05.12.2013, the respondent No.3 was beaten up by her mother-in-law; the Investigating Officer investigated the matter very fairly and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the applicants and the husband of the respondent No.3.

6. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the respondent/State did not file the copy of the said statement of Smt. Shashi. He argued that there is no prima facie evidence available on the record that the applicants had any role in the alleged second marriage of Harish Pal. According to him, the FIR and the charge-sheet against the applicants are nothing, but the abuse of process of the Court.

7. The respondent No.3 has not filed any counter affidavit despite obtaining sufficient opportunity to file the same.

8. Section 482 of the Code clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. The inherent powers of the Court can be invoked in three situations indicated therein, namely, (i) in order to give effect to an order passed under the Code, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of the Court, and (iii) to secure the ends of justice. This power should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

9. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

10. In Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala and another, (2009) 14 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "The scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge-sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge-sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. A number of decisions have been rendered by this Court on the aforesaid issue wherein the law relating to quashing of a complaint has been succinctly laid down."

11. Section 498-A of I.P.C. shows that whoever being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty as contemplated in Clause (a) or

Clause (b) to Explanation of Section 498-A, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

12. In the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for proving the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the complainant must make allegation of harassment to the extent so as to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry, or any wilful conduct on the part of the accused of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The complaint petition must also be read with several other documents which form part of the complaint petition.

13. In the instant matter, after perusal the FIR and the report filed under Section 173 of the Code, it is found that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or the charge-sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under Explanation (a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the applicants-accused persons which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the respondent No.3 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to life. Therefore, Explanation (a) as found in Section 498-A of I.P.C. is clearly not attracted in the present matter.

14. In order to consider cruelty under Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of I.P.C., there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to

her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. When the allegation made in the FIR and the charge-sheet is examined in the present case, it is found that no prima facie case under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty. Ex facie no case has been made out under Section 498A of the IPC so far as the applicants are concerned and there is no prima facie evidence available on the record that the applicants had any role in the alleged second marriage of Harish Pal, husband of the respondent No.3.

15. Consequently, the Application No.416 of 2014, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is allowed. The charge-sheet in the Case Crime No.588 of 2013 and the cognizance order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.586 of 2014, "State vs. Harish Pal and others" under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are quashed qua applicants, namely, (1) Smt. Anandi Pal and (2) Smt. Rampyari Devi only.

16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and compliance.

______________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 04th March, 2021 JKJ/Neha