Naveen Babbar @ Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3938 UK

                                           Reserved Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                         AT NAINITAL

 Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 770 of 2021
                 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)



Naveen Babbar @ others                           .....Applicants

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another              ......Respondents

Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel along with Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2.



                             Judgment Reserved: 23.09.2021
                             Judgment Delivered: 29.09.2021


Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants have prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 09.03.2020; cognizance/summoning order dated 05.1.2021 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 22 of 2021, "State v. Naveen Babbar & others", under Sections 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Ramnagar, District Nainital, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital.

2. Facts, in brief, are that on 16.01.2020, an FIR was lodged against the accused applicants by respondent no. 2 (Smt. Hema Babbar) stating therein that on 17.01.2016 respondent no. 2 solemnized marriage with applicant no. 1 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After sometime a son namely, Lakshya was born from the said wedlock, who is aged about three years. After sometime of marriage, the husband (Naveen Babbar), mother- in-law (Sudesh Babbar), brother-in-laws (Sachin Babbar, Lalit Babar & Yash Babbar) and sister- in-law (Sonia Babbar) of respondent no. 2 started abusing, quarrelling and threatening her with a knife and demanded a dowry of Rupees Twenty Lakhs. It is further stated in the FIR that, respondent no. 2 tolerated all these things for the sake of her reputation and for her son but when the atrocities came at the level then she informed her parents about the aforesaid incident. The parents of respondent no. 2 made them understand but the in-laws of respondent no. 2 tried to kill her and the entire Stridhan and jewelry of respondent no. 2 was retained by her husband and mother-in-law. On 19.12.2019 at the evening of 4:30, respondent no. 2 was at her room then suddenly the applicants came to her room and without any reason started assaulting and abusing her and asked her to come home after bringing Rupees Twenty Lakhs from her parental home otherwise not to come back home.

It is also stated in the FIR that respondent no.2 tolerated all this just because of her son. However, respondent no. 2 on 19.12.2019 ran away from her matrimonial house and came to her friend's house. On 15.01.2020 at about 6:30 a.m., she along with her mother reached her parental home at Ramnagar. It is further stated in the FIR that the life of respondent no. 2 and her son is in danger from the applicants and they may cause any act, which may endanger the life of respondent no. 2 and her son. The compromise had also taken place in regard to the aforesaid act on 15.07.2019 at Mahila Samadhan Kendra, Haldwani but still the applicants are continuously harassing respondent no. 2 physically as well as mentally.

3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2, investigation was made and the police submitted the charge-sheet against the present applicants and thereafter the Court below has summoned the applicants to face trial for the aforementioned offences.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the entire alleged incident stated in the FIR is said to have been taken place in Delhi and the FIR has been lodged at PS Ramnagar, District Nainital, which is without jurisdiction because the averments of the

FIR does not disclose any part of offence committed in the territorial jurisdiction of PS Ramnagar, District Nainital. He further contends that the applicants neither demanded any dowry from respondent no. 2 & from her parents nor they harassed/tortured respondent no. 2. He also contends that the instant FIR has been lodged only to harass the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the instant matter as the marriage was taken place at Ramnagar and the offence is a continuing offence and respondent no. 2 took shelter at her parental home after thrown out by her husband (applicant no. 1). He further contends that applicants are continuously harassing respondent no. 2 physically as well as mentally and also demanded dowry of Rupees Twenty Lakhs.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruhi v. Anees Ahmad & others in SLP (Criminal) No. 106 of 2017 decided on 06.01.2020, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned senior counsel for respondent no.

1. The point that arises in this case is no more res integra as it is covered by the judgment of

this Court in Rupali Devi (supra). It was held by this Court as follows:

"14. ...Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.

15. ...The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 CrPC which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.

16. ...We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498- A of the Penal Code."

7. Having heard the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in this C482 application, inasmuch as, specific allegations have been made against the accused applicants. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case and the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case against the accused applicants.

8. It is a settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to

prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

9. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 29.09.2021 AK