Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2404 (ALL)

Ravi Kant, Avinash Chandra v. State of U. P.

2004-12-01

AMAR SARAN

body2004
AMAR SARAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri H. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri P. K. Pandey learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA and perused the material on record. ( 2 ) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the charge sheet bearing No. 8 of 2000 in case No. 3377 of 2000, and Criminal proceedings under Section 506 ipc, pending in the court of C. J. M, Varanasi. ( 3 ) AN application dated 28. 10. 99 was given to the SSP, Varanasi by Smt. Geeta alleging that she had married applicant Ravi Kant on 12. 3. 1993. The application also detailed a list of items that had been given by the informants brother to her husband and other in-laws at the time of marriage. But the informants husband and other in-laws were dissatisfied and they were demanding additional dowry for which they began to torture her. As the demands could not be met by her brother who was in dire straits as her father had died earlier, the informant was turned out of her house in the clothes that she was wearing. She thereafter lodged a report about that earlier incident at the Mahila thana, Varanasi. She met the applicant on the date of incident (which is not mentioned in the F. I. R.) at about 11. 30 a. m. in the District Court when he had come there as a date was fixed in connection with the earlier case. The applicant told her outside the Varanasi district Court in the presence of certain counsel that he would not return her goods for which she was sending repeated demands, and he would also not make any payment in respect of the levy warrant for the maintenance amount for which the date was fixed for 20. l1. 99. on the basis of her decree in proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. He dared her to act as she desired and stated that if she pursued him any further then he would get her finished off. She further prayed in the application that the inspector Cantt. be directed to register a case and to take legal action against the applicant, and get her goods returned. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this application an FIR was registered against the applicant on 30. 10. She further prayed in the application that the inspector Cantt. be directed to register a case and to take legal action against the applicant, and get her goods returned. ( 4 ) ON the basis of this application an FIR was registered against the applicant on 30. 10. 99 at case Crime No. 518 of 99 at P. S. Cantt. district Varanasi under Sections 506/406 IPC. After investigation however a charge sheet dated 10. 1. 2000 was only submitted under Section 506 IPC as according to the Investigating officer no case under Section 406 IPC was made out. ( 5 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant Smt. Geeta has been resorting to repeated prosecutions of the applicant, who is her husband and his family members, after their marital relations became strained. In this connection Smt. Geeta has also secured the conviction of the applicant and his family members in a case under Section 498-A ipc, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the strength of the earlier FIR lodged on 13. 7. 96 at Mahila Thana, Varanasi. In this case they were sentenced to two years R. I by the 9th ACJM, Varanasi, by judgement dated 25. 11. 99. The appeal preferred by the accused has been dismissed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi on 18. 2. 2002 and criminal revision No. 63 of 2002 is pending in the High Court in which the applicant and his family members were released on bail. ( 6 ) SHE has also obtained a decree of maintenance by an order of the Family Court under Section 125 Cr. P. C directing payment of Rs. 500 per month from the date of application by, Varanasi dated 16. 7. 1999. Subsequently, she has filed the FIR dated 30. 10. 99 in the present case under sections 406/506 IPC. In spite of these reports and other applications the complaining wife is not even prepared to grant divorce to the applicant and after the applicant had filed the divorce petition No. 90 of 2000, she has approached this Court and obtained a stay order on 16. 5. 2002. 10. 99 in the present case under sections 406/506 IPC. In spite of these reports and other applications the complaining wife is not even prepared to grant divorce to the applicant and after the applicant had filed the divorce petition No. 90 of 2000, she has approached this Court and obtained a stay order on 16. 5. 2002. ( 7 ) IN this background it does appear that the instrumentality of the courts is being used by the informant not to prosecute the applicant but for the purpose of persecution, which can never be countenanced by this Court. ( 8 ) SO far as the allegations under Section 406 IPC, which were also included in this FIR were concerned, the police have not even charge sheeted the applicant as no case appeared to have been made out under that section, and the police have only charge sheeted the applicant under section 506 IPC. That order had been allowed to become final by the complainant and hence only the allegations under Section 506 IPC remain. ( 9 ) OTHERWISE also, it appears inherently improbable in the background of the case that when the applicant and his family members were already facing prosecution in a case under Section 498-A ipc after an FIR dated 13. 7. 96, that the applicant would muster enough courage to commit any offence against the complainant in the court premises. Significantly, even the names of those advocates were not mentioned and it is not unlikely that such an FIR has been lodged by way of peshbandi only to harass and pressurise the applicant. ( 10 ) IT can also not be ruled that out of sheer frustration when the applicant felt that he was being trapped and persecuted by his wife from every corner, that he may have muttered the words complained about without having any intention to commit the offence described in Section 506 ipc. ( 11 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the informant, that questions of fact can not be appreciated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it was open to the applicant to raise his pleas at the trial. In this connection it has been observed by the honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. In this connection it has been observed by the honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that when the allegations are ex facie wholly absurd that no prudent person would act upon them or when the prosecution has been instituted in a mala fide manner in order to wreck vengeance, then these are instances when prosecutions may be quashed in proceedings under section 482 Cr. P. C. Paragraphs 102 (5) and 102 (7) of the law report describe these two categories where quashing of a complaint under Section 482 Cr. P. C is possible as follows: "102 (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. 102 (7 ). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive far wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " ( 12 ) MORE recently, relying on its earlier decision in State of Karnataka v. L. Munnniswamy and ors. , AIR1977 SC 1489 , 1977 Crilj1125 , 1977 (2)Karlj483 , (1977)2 SCC699 , [1977 ]3 SCR113 , the apex Court has held in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of haryana, 2003 CBC 393 (Supreme Court) that it would not be expedient to allow a lame prosecution to continue and the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law. In this connection the following extract from paragraph 10 of the aforesaid case in B. S. Joshi is pertinent. "in State of Karnataka v. L. Munniswamy and Ors. , considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the high court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. "in State of Karnataka v. L. Munniswamy and Ors. , considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the high court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. " (Emphasis added)To this I would like to add these very significant words of Jeremy Taylor " No obligation to justice does force a man to be cruel, or to use the sharpest sentence. A just man does justice to every man and to every thing; and then, if he also be wise, he knows there is a debt of mercy and compassion due to the infirmity of mans nature and that is to be paid. " ( 13 ) IN this view of the matter, allowing criminal proceedings to continue against the applicant would amount to gross abuse of the process of Court and accordingly the prosecution of the applicant in the aforesaid case is quashed. . .