Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 567 (ALL)

Amit v. State of U. P.

2018-03-08

OM PRAKASH VII

body2018
JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 2. List revised. None present for the opposite party No. 2 in the revised call. 3. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G A. for the State. 4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet and order of cognizance dated 22.12.2014 and entire proceeding of case No. 6625 of 2014, State v. Amit and others, arising out of case crime No. 146 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 315 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., VIIIth, Ghaziabad. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant No. 1 (husband) is facing trial, as the prayer made in respect of applicant No. 1 in this application was refused by this Court vide order dated 4.2.2015. Referring to Annexure 2 (medical report) to the application, it is submitted that offence under Section 315 IPC is not attracted in this matter. Death of the child is natural. It is next contended that initially F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants and other persons, but charge-sheet was submitted only against the present applicants. No active role has been assigned to the applicants No. 2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim, either for raising demand, causing cruelty or for the offence punishable under Section 315 IPC. At this juncture, learned counsel has also referred to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Much emphasis was laid on the statements of the victim girl and her mother recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and argued that prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that applicants No. 2 and 3 were residing separately from the applicant No. 1. Referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and her mother, it is further submitted that if the entire prosecution evidence is taken into consideration, then also all the offences including the offence under Section 315 IPC will be attracted against the applicant No. 1 only. Referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and her mother, it is further submitted that if the entire prosecution evidence is taken into consideration, then also all the offences including the offence under Section 315 IPC will be attracted against the applicant No. 1 only. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, 2012(10) ADJ 464 and argued that entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case initiated against the applicants No. 2 and 3 are an abuse of process of law. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 7. Before adverting the submissions made by the parties with the facts of the present case, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraphs of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) case. "24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication 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 domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 25. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 including Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial Court." 8. In this matter, as is evident from the record, keeping in view the role assigned to the applicants No. 2 and 3 in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and her mother, offence under Section 315 IPC is not attracted against them. There are general and vague allegations levelled against the applicants No. 2 and 3. They would not be benefited in any manner with the said demand of dowry. Merely on this basis that they are the parents of the husband of the victim, they could not be made responsible and punished for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 315 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. They would not be benefited in any manner with the said demand of dowry. Merely on this basis that they are the parents of the husband of the victim, they could not be made responsible and punished for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 315 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Matter with regard to applicants No. 2 and 3 squarely covers with the law laid down in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses itself demonstrate that applicant No. 1 and Ganga have caused injuries to the victim girl which resulted in miscarriage. 9. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case arid the statement made by the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also analyzing the evidence available on record i.e. medical examination report of the victim girl, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants are liable to be accepted and proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed in respect of applicants No. 2 and 3. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the proceedings of case No. 6625 of 2014, State v. Amit and others, arising out of case crime No. 146 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 315 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. VIIIth, Ghaziabad are quashed in respect of applicants No. 2 and 3 namely, Moolchand and Smt. Chandrakali. 11. With the above observations, the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands partly allowed.