Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 47 (UTT)

Kanchan Devi v. State of U. P.

2014-02-18

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.05.2000 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 291 of 2000, captioned as State vs. Tanuj and others, under Section 498-A, 315 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/ A.C.J.M., Roorkee. 2. A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 3 Smt. Seema against the applicants at PS Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, which was registered as case crime no. 14 of 2000, under Section 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 315 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on the said charge-sheet. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. 3. According to respondent no. 3, she was married to applicant no. 3 on 11.05.1999 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Informant-victim’s father gave articles and gifts according to his capacity in the marriage. Victim’s husband Tanuj Kumar Singh, father-in-law Ashok Singh, mother-in-law Kanchan Devi and sister-in-law Pramisha Singh were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage. They abused her and also ridiculed her. The victim thought that everything will be alright in due course and therefore, kept mum. In her complaint, she stated that she went to her matrimonial home four times, but on each occasion, she had to incur the wrath of her in-laws, who assaulted and harassed her. She rang up to her father on 12.12.1999. Her husband and father-in-law came to know of it (re: phone call). Then they dropped her to her parental home on 13.12.1999. Her husband and father-in-law told that she would not be taken to her matrimonial home unless a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid. When victim told her ordeal to her parents, she was taken to Government Hospital for treatment. She was pregnant. Her parents thought that everything will be set at right after the delivery of child and therefore, they did not do anything. On 05.01.2000, her husband and father-in-law came to her parental home. They said that if money worth Rs. When victim told her ordeal to her parents, she was taken to Government Hospital for treatment. She was pregnant. Her parents thought that everything will be set at right after the delivery of child and therefore, they did not do anything. On 05.01.2000, her husband and father-in-law came to her parental home. They said that if money worth Rs. 1,50,000/- has been arranged, then the victim may be sent along with them. Victim and her mother expressed inability to pay such sum. After hearing this, her husband pressed victim’s neck and her father-in-law beat her with kicks and fists in her abdomen with the intention of killing her unborn child. When she raised alarm, Suresh, Praveen Sharma and Ishwar Sharma came, saw the incident and saved her. Her mother also fell on the ground. The informant was medically examined in the Government Hospital, Roorkee. 4. On perusal of the first information report and other documents, it reveals that foundation of criminal offence is laid against the present applicants no. 1, 2 & 3. It cannot be said at this stage that no offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 315 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out against the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order, whereby the accused persons (applicants no. 1, 2 & 3) were summoned to face the trial. There was no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, therefore, appears to have committed no mistake in summoning the accused persons (applicants no. 1, 2 & 3) for the offences complained of against them. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles, which are relevant in the context of present case, can be summarized as below: i. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ii. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ii. 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. iii. 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. iv. 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. v. 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 loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 6. There appears to be no illegality in the cognizance and summoning order (order under challenge). No interference is called for in the same at this stage, as would be evident from the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 . Para 28 of the said ruling is reproduced herein below for convenience: “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 levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused is. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled 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 levelled 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. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 7. The foundation of Criminal Offence is laid against the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3 in the instant case. Criminal proceeding pending against them therefore, should not be quashed. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. 8. It is also the settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of it’s inherent jurisdiction. 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 in the Section itself. The applicants no. 1, 2 & 3, in the instant case, are unable to pass those tests. 9. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants 1, 2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. As has been indicated above, the applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is the husband of respondent no.3. Applicant no. 4 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 3. 10. As has been indicated above, the applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is the husband of respondent no.3. Applicant no. 4 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 3. No allegation has been levelled against sister-in-law of the victim in respect of offence punishable under Section 315 IPC, in as much as, according to the first information report itself, the husband and father-in-law of respondent no. 1 came to Roorkee on 05.01.2000 and committed such crime. So far as the other offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are concerned, there are sweeping and generalized allegations against applicant no. 4. It appears that she was implicated in the case only because she was a member of the house-hold of her husband. She is the sister of her husband. Possibility of implicating her unnecessarily cannot be ruled out in view of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “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. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that the allegations of such complaints are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 11. Had the sister-in-law also involved in the cruelty, something specific must have been stated against her. The status and involvement of an unmarried sister-in-law cannot be equated with the mother-in-law of the bride. Mother-in-law constitutes the nucleus of every family. Normally, it is she who runs the family. She has strong hold over the affairs of the family. The same cannot be said about an unmarried sister-in-law. Moreover, in the instant case, there is no specific or pinpointed allegation against her. She can not be prosecuted on generalized allegations, for the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 12. She has strong hold over the affairs of the family. The same cannot be said about an unmarried sister-in-law. Moreover, in the instant case, there is no specific or pinpointed allegation against her. She can not be prosecuted on generalized allegations, for the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another (supra) has held that where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Court or that interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the application moved on behalf of applicant no. 4 should be allowed. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore allowed so far as the same relates to applicant no. 4 Km. Pramisha Singh. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 29.05.2000 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 291 of 2000, State vs. Tanuj and others, under Sections 498-A, 315 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/ A.C.J.M., Roorkee are quashed qua applicant no. 4 only.