Uttarakhand High Court
Navneet Gupta & Ors. ... vs The State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Appl. (C482) No. 967 of 2021
Navneet Gupta & Ors. ............... Applicants
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand & anr. ...... Respondents
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Allaudin, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Shruti Joshi,
learned counsel for the informant.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
By means of present application, filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3909 of 2018,
State vs. Navneet & others, under Sections 498A, 323,
506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun.
2. Heard.
3. Respondent no. 2 Vineeta Gupta submitted
information on 09.08.2017 with P.S. Vasant Vihar,
Dehradun regarding demand of dowry; accordingly on the
basis of said information FIR No. 902 of 2017 was
registered under Sections 498A, 302, 506 IPC and under
Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act; after completion of the
investigation charge sheet was submitted against the
applicants; the concerned court took the cognizance on
02.06.2018; aggrieved it, the present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings
has been preferred.
4. Applicant no. 1 Naveen Gupta is the husband while
other applicants are the family members of respondent
no.2; a compromise has taken place between the parties;
applicant no. 1 Naveen Gupta and respondent no. 2
Vineeta Gupta filed a divorce petition No. 1186 of 2019,
Naveen Gupta vs. Smt. Vineeta Gupta, under Section
138-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of mutual
consent; the said divorce petition was allowed vide order
dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dehradun
5. It is submitted that the present FIR was lodged by
the informant with misconception of facts; there is no
evidence against the applicants regarding demand of
dowry or torture.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent no.
2 Smt. Vineeta Gupta wherein it is mentioned that a
compromise has taken place between the parties,
accordingly, divorce decree has been granted by way of
mutual consent and prayed that present petition may be
allowed.
7. From the perusal of the judgment dated 16.06.2021
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in
divorce petition no. 1186 of 2019 it would reveal that
parties filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act whereby statements were recorded;
accordingly, on the basis of the evidence, the concerned
Judge came to this conclusion that said application was
filed mutually; there was no coercion and allowed the
application and the marriage has been dissolved by
decree of divorce.
8. As per the documents it is clear that respondent no.
2 submitted the application with misconception of facts
while there is no evidence against the applicants under
Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of
the D.P. Act; the concerned court took the cognizance
simply on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the I.O.
while prima facie there is no evidence against the
applicant.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal & others,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has considered,
in detail, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the
power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or
FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the legal
position by laying the following guidelines to be followed
by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to
quash a criminal complaint: -
1. "Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
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.
2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or,
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
10. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case,
in the light of aforesaid judgments, prima facie, there is
no evidence against the applicants in the aforesaid
sections.
11. Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be
allowed, and accordingly allowed. In consequence, the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3909 of 2018,
State vs. Navneet & others, under Sections 498A, 323,
506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun
are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
12. Present C482 petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
27.09.2021
Parul
