Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3579 (ALL)

Ram Kripal v. State of U. P.

2016-10-26

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate holding bried of Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. 2. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr. P. C. with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 3.8.2016 as well as the entire Criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.868 of 2016 (Prabhawati Devi vs. Haripal and others) u/s 498 A, 323 IPC and ¾ D. P. Act, P. S. Turkpatti, District-Kushinagar pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar or to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicants are Jeth and Jethani and they are living separately. It has further been submitted that there are general allegations in the complaint against the accused persons/applicants, which do not constitute the offence and the applicants/petitioners are entiled to the protection as observed in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U. P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 . Further submission is that the marriage was solemnzied in the year 2011. There was no grievances with respect to demand of dowry or cruelty from the date of marriage till the date of institution of the complaint. Hence, the allegations contained in the complaint do not inspire confidence. 4. Learned A. G. A. has submitted that the separate living of the applicants/petitioners is a fact and it constitutes a distinct defence, which can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. It has been argued by the learned A. G. A. that the complaint discloses allegations against the accused persons and more so, the witnesses examined by the complainant u/s 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. namely the complainant Prabhawati, Shree Singh and Nand Prasad Yadav have corroborated the averments of the complaint. 5. After considering the averments of the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr. P. C., the Magistrate was pleased to pass the cognizance order, which has not been challenged before any forum on the ground of illegality, impropriety or correctness by way of revision. 6. The accused-applicant shall be at liberty to lead evidence to demonstrate the factum of separate living at an appropriate stage. P. C., the Magistrate was pleased to pass the cognizance order, which has not been challenged before any forum on the ground of illegality, impropriety or correctness by way of revision. 6. The accused-applicant shall be at liberty to lead evidence to demonstrate the factum of separate living at an appropriate stage. The legal position is settled that the defence cannot be scrutinized in absence of evidence at this stage and as such no findings can be recorded. 7. It has further been submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry, and mental or physical cruelty has been alleged after a period of one month from the date of marriage. In Geeta Mehrotra's case there was no allegation against the rest of family members excepting the husband and immediately after the wedding ceremony was over and all the relatives left, the maid, who used to give meals to the family members, was first of all paid off. The complainant was asked to prepare the food for the family. In addition the aforementioned people started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues. The complainant in the aforesaid case took up a job at a call centre where the complainant had to do night shifts. She used to come back home at around 3 am in the morning and just on her return from work, the house people started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to get up at 7 o'clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all the members in the family. Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shaymji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the complainant every day mentally and physically. 8. The relevant portion of paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is being reproduced hereinbelow : - "The FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. 8. The relevant portion of paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is being reproduced hereinbelow : - "The FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in ceases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of any offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses of case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestie bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding." 9. The facts of the case in hand and the aforesaid rulings cites supra are entirely different. Further the observations made in the Geeta Mehrotra's case may be taken to be the guiding factors in reference to the averments discussed therein. The learned Court below after considering the complaint and the evidence led u/s 200 & 202 Cr. P. C., passed the orders of summoning, which in no way is violative of the principle enumerated in the Geeta Mehrotra's case. There appears no justification to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P. C. 10. The petition/application is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.