Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 608 (UTT)

Darshan Kaur v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-09-25

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seek to quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2010, passed in criminal case no. 887 of 2010 in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2) Respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against four accused persons, including the applicants, at police station Ranipur, District Haridwar on 11.08.2010, which was registered as case crime no. 298 of 2010, under Section 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons for the selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and accused persons, including the applicants, were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was moved by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no. 2. 3) Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in Original Suit no. 155 of 2009 between Gurudev Singh, Smt. Darshan Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur, on the one hand, and Indrapal Singh, on the other. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs Gurudev Singh and two others against Indrapal Singh for declaration. The suit was decreed on 14.05.2010. A declaration was given by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar to the effect that the defendant has no right upon the disputed property, detailed and specified in the plaint. A declaration was also made in favour of the plaintiffs that they have no connection with the defendant. 4) As per the FIR, marriage of respondent no. 2 took place with Indrapal Singh (non-applicant) according to Hindu rites and rituals on 19.04.2009. The members of the matrimonial home of respondent no. 2 were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage. Husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 and the mediator ridiculed her and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and a car. When respondent no. 2 expressed her inability to provide the same, the members of her matrimonial home started harassing her. Main allegations were leveled against the mother-in-law, husband and the mediator by complainant-respondent no. 2. Husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 and the mediator ridiculed her and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and a car. When respondent no. 2 expressed her inability to provide the same, the members of her matrimonial home started harassing her. Main allegations were leveled against the mother-in-law, husband and the mediator by complainant-respondent no. 2. The atrocities committed by the mother-in-law include demand of dowry, torture, castigation, assault and ouster from the matrimonial home. It was also said that complainant-respondent no. 2 has threat to her life with her husband, mother-in-law and the mediator. A bare reading of the FIR will indicate that there is only one sentence against applicant no. 2 (married sister-in-law) that she, alongwith others, was not satisfied with the articles given by the parents of respondent no. 2 in marriage. Applicant no. 2 is married to a far away place at Chhattisgarh, whereas the matrimonial home of respondent no. 2 is situated at Haridwar. 5) There is no gain saying the fact that the serious allegations were leveled by respondent no. 2 against her mother-in-law, amongst others. It cannot, therefore, be said that no prima facie case was made out against the mother-in-law. Whether those allegations are right or wrong, can best be decided by the trial court, for, this Court is not expected to enter into the factual aspects of the case. 6) Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 has desired the High Courts to follow the following steps while dealing with applications under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. The same reads as under: • Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? • Step two: Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? • Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? • Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? • Step four: Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 7) A perusal of the record of the instant case will suggest that the reply to the aforesaid questions is in the affirmative as regards the role of applicant no. 2 (sister-in-law), the reply to the aforesaid questions is in the negative as regards the role of applicant no. 1 (mother-in-law) and, as a consequences thereof, there is no occasion to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused-applicant no. 1 in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above noted case, also observed as under: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations leveled by the prosecution / complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) leveled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 8) 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. 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. 9) Whereas the factual foundation of the offences is laid in respect of applicant no. 1, the same is missing for applicant no. 2, and therefore, this Court should not intervene in the proceedings against the mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2 in exercise of it’s inherent jurisdiction. But this Court must interfere in the proceedings initiated against the married sister-in-law to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. As is said above, single allegation against the sister-in-law is general and sweeping in nature. Nothing concrete or substantial has come up against her, so as to warrant her appearance before the court below in order to face the trial. The application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., therefore, deserves to be partly allowed (in favour of married sister-in-law) in view of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein Hon’ble Court observed that to find out the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. 10) Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of applicant no. 2 is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 29.09.2010, passed in criminal case no. 887 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed qua applicant no. 2. 11) Application under Section 482 of Cr. 887 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed qua applicant no. 2. 11) Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of applicant no. 1 is dismissed. It is, however, provided that if she surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, her bail application shall be decided at an early date and preferably on the same day. Interim order dated 22.11.2010, granted by this Court, stands vacated.