Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1742 (HP)

Manoj Jamwal v. State of H. P.

2018-09-27

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Petitioner, in this petition, is an accused in FIR No.191 registered on 22.7.2015 in Police Station, Kangra, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Remaining co-accused are his brother Mukesh Kumar, father Bihari Lal, mother Kamlesh and sister-in-law (Nanad) Anuradha. Allegations against them are that after her marriage with accused Mukesh Kumar on 28.11.2013, they started quarreling with her at the pretext of dowry. Allegations that she is a woman of bad character were also being levelled against her. They have also been abusing her as well as her parents. On being fed up from such behavior of the accused persons, she filed a complaint under Section 156 Cr. P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. The same was forwarded to the Police of Police Station, Kangra and the report was sought to be filed in the court on or before 7.9.2015. It is on the basis of the order passed by the Court, the FIR came to be registered against the accused-petitioner and his co-accused. 2. Police conducted investigation and filed report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. Besides the complainant-respondent No.2 and her brother Sudhir Keshav, former Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Jogipur; Secretary, Gram Panchayat Gabli Dari; Up Pardhan Gram Panchayat Dari; Ward Panch Gram Panchayat, Dari and other persons, including the police officials, were also associated during the investigation conducted in the matter. The complaints made to SHO, Police Station, Kangra, Presiding Officer, Women Cell, Dharamshala and to Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Dari, have also been obtained and added in the police file. The documents showing that in Women Police Station, respondent No.2- complainant had arrived at a compromise, have also been taken on record. The investigation conducted further reveals that no amicable settlement could be arrived at in the complaint made by her to local Gram Panchayat. 3. The record further reveals prima-facie that respondent No.2-complainant, with a view to save her married life made all possible efforts to patch up the differences, but to no avail. Ultimately, she approached learned trial court by way of complaint under Section 156 Cr. P.C. and it is on the direction of the Court, the FIR came to be registered against the accused petitioner. 4. Ultimately, she approached learned trial court by way of complaint under Section 156 Cr. P.C. and it is on the direction of the Court, the FIR came to be registered against the accused petitioner. 4. Accused-petitioner Manoj Jamwal being elder brother of accused Mukesh Kumar is Jeth (brother-in-law) of respondent No.2-complainant Garima Kashyap. The evidence prima-facie reveals that the house where the family resides belongs to him. In the proceedings having taken place before the Gram Panchayat, the respondent-complainant had refused to reside in the said house and rather decided to live in the rented accommodation along with accused Mukesh Kumar and her newly born child. 5. Allegations against the accused-petitioner in a nut-shell are that in the first week of April, 2014, the accused persons called the parents of the respondent-complainant to their house at Dari. Before their arrival, the accused-petitioner and accused Anuradha had beaten up her and thereafter the accused-petitioner left the house along with his family for Udhampur. Further allegations are that the accused persons misbehaved with her parents and brother also. No doubt such complaint was withdrawn by her, however, on the assurance of the accused-persons that they will settle all disputes by negotiation across the table. 6. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner has strenuously contended that nothing tangible has come on record to show that the accusedpetitioner has tortured and harassed the respondent-complainant. While pointing out the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of her father Sudhir Keshav recorded by the police, it is submitted that had the relations of the respondent-complainant and her husband Mukesh Kumar been strained, she would have not accompanied him to Ladbharol, his place of posting on 5/6th April, 2014. He has further submitted that on 20.4.2014, when as per the statement of Sudhir Keshav aforesaid she was left by her husband accused Mukesh Kumar outside his house, the accused-petitioner had already returned to his Unit in the Army. 7. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant and Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General have argued from the record that there is ample evidence which connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of offence. 8. 7. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant and Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General have argued from the record that there is ample evidence which connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of offence. 8. Although at this stage, it would not be proper to make any observation, touching the merits of the case of either party, yet suffice would it to say that the differences between the respondent-Complainant and accused persons could not be sorted out and as a result thereof she has launched prosecution against them. 9. Before coming to the rival submissions, it is desirable to refer to the legal principles applicable to a case of this nature, as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follow: “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to given an exhaustive list of myriad kind of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding in instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. As discussed hereinabove, the allegations made in the FIR and the investigation conducted in the matter are not of such a nature so as to infer that if taken as it is, do not constitute commission of any offence, even prima-facie or make out a case against the accused petitioner. The same rather disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also not a case where the allegations levelled by the respondentcomplainant, if taken as it is, no conclusion that sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused-petitioner are not made out, can be drawn. The same rather disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also not a case where the allegations levelled by the respondentcomplainant, if taken as it is, no conclusion that sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused-petitioner are not made out, can be drawn. The present is also not a case where it can be said, even prima-facie, that the respondent-complainant has levelled the allegations with malafide intention to launch criminal proceedings against the accused petitioner maliciously with ulterior motive or to take revenge against him for the reason that she is a doctor by profession hence, an educated lady. 11. As noticed supra, prima-facie she made all efforts to save her married life, because after making complaints against the accused petitioner, on being persuaded by elderly placed, including the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, she had withdrawn such complaints also. Not only this, but during conciliation proceedings, she opted for residing along with her husband-accused Mukesh Kumar and had also undertaken to maintain her mother-in-law and father-in-law, in the rented accommodation which was proposed to be hired by her. 12. In view of what has been said hereinabove, no case is made out to exercise the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash and set aside the FIR and also the criminal proceedings, now pending disposal in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. This petition as such is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of and the interim order dated 6.6.2016 vacated. 13. The parties through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 29.10.2018. The trial Court shall proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law, after securing the presence of the remaining accused persons. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment, so as to reach there well before the date fixed. 14. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, for compliance.