Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 445 (UTT)

ABHINAV SAURABH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-08-21

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 10.02.2013, summoning order dated 18.03.2013, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 2462 of 2013, State vs Nutesh Saurabh and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 2. Criminal law was set into motion by the victim (respondent no. 2 herein) by lodging an FIR against four named accused persons, including the applicants, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The victim (respondent no.2) was married to accused-applicant no. 3 in the year 2009. The other accused are the family members of her husband. Allegations of cruelty have been leveled against the husband and his relatives by the victim. This Court need not reproduce the entire version of FIR for the sake of brevity and also for the reason that they form part of the record. In a nut shell, demand for dowry and ill treatment have been alleged by the victim against her husband and his family members. 4. Applicant no. 1 is brother-in-law; applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law and applicant no. 3 is husband of respondent no. 2. When the petition was taken up for admission on 26.12.2013, an inclination was shown by the husband that he is interested in settling the dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that much water has flown since then, without yielding any results. Efforts for mediation were taken, but to no avail. 5. On a bare reading of the FIR and the charge sheet thus submitted, foundation of criminal offence is laid against all the applicants. 6. Judging by the same yardstick, the Court does not find any merit in the grounds which have been taken on behalf of the applicants in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court need not reproduce those grounds which have been taken by the applicants, as the same are part of the record. 7. 6. Judging by the same yardstick, the Court does not find any merit in the grounds which have been taken on behalf of the applicants in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court need not reproduce those grounds which have been taken by the applicants, as the same are part of the record. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1 , 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 un-controverted 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 power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 8. There appears to be no illegality in the order under challenge. No interference is called for in the same at this stage, as would also 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 here-in-below for convenience: “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 levelled 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 levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. 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 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." 9. The Court was again taken through the contents of FIR. From a bare perusal of FIR, it is apparent that foundation of criminal offence is laid against the present applicants in the instant case. Criminal proceedings 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. 10. It is also the settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 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, in the instant case, are unable to pass those tests. 11. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted to the applicants to place all the factual pleas before the trial court for securing their discharge / acquittal, at an appropriate stage.