Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2205 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2011-10-25

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2011
JUDGMENT : Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. Petitioner/accused, Anil Kumar Singh has filed instant petition for quashing of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 298 of 2009 registered under Sections 498A, 386 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act instituted on the basis of Complaint Petition No. 530 of 2009 filed by O.P. No. 2, Silpi Chauhan as directed u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. On account of marital discord Silpi Chauhan O.P. No. 2 who (did not appear during pendency of instant petition) filed complaint petition against her husband Anil Kumar, the petitioner, father-in-law, mother-in-law detailing the events which she faced attracting application of penal law which was sent to the P.S. concerned for registration and investigation of the case as a result of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 298 of 2009 has been registered under Sections 498A, 386 of the I.P.C., and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that whatever allegation has been levelled, appears to be vexatious, cryptic and has been levelled with mala fide intention in revengeful manner only to harass the petitioner along with his family members. Then submitted that in spite of having the case registered on 7.5.2009, uptil now charge-sheet has not been submitted. The conduct of the investigating authority clearly suggests that he has gone in camp of opposite party No. 2. Then submitted that instant case has been filed after filing of divorce case by the petitioner bearing No. 246 of 2009. Further to discredit the allegation of cruelty, it has been submitted that even before institution of the case, petitioner had deposited money in the account of O.P. No. 2 and for that placed relevant counterfoil. Also submitted that during course of hearing of bail petition of father-in-law and mother-in-law, the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi vide order dated 11.6.2009 passed in B.P. No. 661 of 2009 has held that no specific case of cruelty is made out against them. Also submitted that during course of hearing of bail petition of father-in-law and mother-in-law, the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi vide order dated 11.6.2009 passed in B.P. No. 661 of 2009 has held that no specific case of cruelty is made out against them. Also submitted that O.P. No. 2 was coerced by her parents to marry with the petitioner although she was in love with other and aforesaid theme was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2 herself and to support the same letters have been filed vide Annexures 2 and 3 written by O.P. No. 2 and so submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is fit case wherein FIR should be quashed invoking the provision u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. 3. At the other hand the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that till today it has not been disclosed by the petitioner whether he has obtained bail. Then submitted that whatever facts have been placed, those are to be scrutinized during trial as happens to be factual one and its veracity cannot be tested at the present even to the extent of investigation is allowed to conclude. Further submitted that petitioner should be before the investigating authority with the aforesaid documents so that its genuineness could be ascertained. As such, the prayer of the petitioner in the aforesaid background is not at all maintainable. 4. None represented the O.P. No. 2 in spite of having her appearance. 5. Intervenor petition was filed on behalf of Jugal Kishore Singh, however, the previous order sheet shows that the same had not been allowed. The ambit and scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been taken into consideration times without number and there happens to be catena of decisions on this score laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Intervenor petition was filed on behalf of Jugal Kishore Singh, however, the previous order sheet shows that the same had not been allowed. The ambit and scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been taken into consideration times without number and there happens to be catena of decisions on this score laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In a recent decision reported in M. Mohan v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238 the Hon'ble Court has held that "if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, in such a case the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed under its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C" In another decision reported in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., 2011 (2) DLT(Crl.) 116 (SC) it has been observed "this Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement 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 in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. Now coming to the other submissions raised on behalf of petitioner, in a decision reported in 2011 (3) P.L.J.R. 100 (SC) at para 21 it has been observed "it is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 or revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an inquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents which are beyond suspicion or doubt placed by accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the Trial Court. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents which are beyond suspicion or doubt placed by accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the Trial Court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage. So far as delay is concerned, the following passage is relevant to be quoted as held In Re: The Special Court Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478 . (I) It is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal Courts excel in show-motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions....". The show-motion becomes much slow-motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. F.I.Rs. are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petition. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. and if ever the case reaches the stage of trail after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the prosecution loses interest-the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior Courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages of criminal cases. Such interference would be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course. In the circumstances, we cannot accede to the said contention. 6. As stated above, the allegation so put under complaint petition so far as petitioner Anil Kumar Singh, the husband is concerned, that is found to be visible even at a glance. No pleading of divorce case has been filed therefore that chapter found blurred. With regard to sanctity of letters, that is yet to be ascertained by way of its authentication. No other aspect is visible on the record to justify the prayer of the petitioner. No pleading of divorce case has been filed therefore that chapter found blurred. With regard to sanctity of letters, that is yet to be ascertained by way of its authentication. No other aspect is visible on the record to justify the prayer of the petitioner. Therefore, taking into account the materials in its entirety as well as the legal proposition as disclosed above, the instant petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.