Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 579 (UTT)

Sanjeev Budhakoti v. Manju Budhakoti

2013-09-04

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 2 (father-in-law of the victim) has died, therefore, he is not seeking any relief in respect of said applicant. 2) The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seek to set aside the summoning order dated 13.03.2008, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 658 of 2009, Smt. Manju vs Sanjeev Budhakoti and others, under Section 406 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 3) A criminal complaint case was filed by the respondent against six accused persons, including the applicants, in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. On the basis of statement of Manju Budhakoti under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. and statement of Sanjeev Budhakoti under Section 202 of Cr. P.C., accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, vide order dated 13.03.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was moved by the accused-applicants. 4) Although the impugned order is not happily drafted, yet the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr. P.C. leave no room for doubt that a prima facie case against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out. Respondent was married to the applicant no. 1 on 17.10.2004, according to Hindu rites and rituals at Rishikesh. The parents, brothers and relatives of the respondent gave enough articles to her in the marriage. Differences cropped up between the respondent and applicant no. 1 in due course, as a consequence of which, the respondent was assaulted, threatened, harassed and ousted from her matrimonial home. The articles given to the respondent in dowry were not returned to her. It was stated that the jewellery and other streedhan was still in the possession of the applicants and was not returned to the respondent. The details of the articles given in marriage were given in paragraph no. 4 of the complaint. 5) Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. The details of the articles given in marriage were given in paragraph no. 4 of the complaint. 5) Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. The facts of the instant case do not lead to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction. 6) The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. The facts of the instant case do not lead to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction. 6) The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. The facts of the instant case do not pass those tests. 7) As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is dismissed. Considering the fact that the proceedings against the applicants were initiated in a complaint case, and other attenuating circumstances, it is provided that if accused-applicants no. 1 and accused-applicant no. 3 surrender before the Court concerned and seek bail, their bail applications shall be decided by the Magistrate concerned on the same day.