Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 142 (ALL)

Jagar Nath v. State Of U. P.

2019-01-18

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2019
ORDER : Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the proceeding in Complaint Case No.384 of 2003 Reeta Devi Vs. Ramesh Chaurasia, under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. 3. At the very outset, while claiming innocence of the applicants, it has been claimed that no offence has been committed by the applicants under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C. The claim that during subsistence of the previous marriage, the husband of opposite party no.2 entered into nuptial knot with applicant no.3 Meena Devi daughter of Jagar Nath is baseless, false and vexatious to the utter annoyance of the applicants. The entire complaint moved by the complainant does not make any criminal liability as such. 4. It has been further added that merely on account of verbal claim, it cannot be established that any offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is made out. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has also described ingredient of Section 494 I.P.C. and claimed that by virtue of ingredient involved in this case, the complainant may amply prove the fact of subsequent marriage performed by her husband Ramesh Chaurasia but no such proof has been produced by the complainant. Mere verbal claim has been made which has not been substantiated by the facts and circumstances of the case. The present applicants have nothing to do with the offence in question. 5. It has been added next that assuming it to be that any offence has been committed by the husband of opposite party no.2 but the applicants have got no concern with subsequent marriage of the husband of opposite party no.2 and the allegations are bald and baseless. In this regard, various persons have given their affidavits which also substantiate claim of the applicants that no subsequent marriage was ever performed by Ramesh Chaurasia. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that bare perusal of the contents of the complaint would make out a clear cut case under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C. against the applicants. In this regard, various persons have given their affidavits which also substantiate claim of the applicants that no subsequent marriage was ever performed by Ramesh Chaurasia. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that bare perusal of the contents of the complaint would make out a clear cut case under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C. against the applicants. In this regard, prayer of the complaint is crystal clear that after narrating the entire episode, the case falls within four corners of Section 494 I.P.C. and further prayer has been made for summoning the accused under Sections 494, 109, 504, 506 I.P.C. In this regard, statement of the complainant (annexure no.2) on record would also create substantive liability against the present applicants that they have acted by virtue of Section 109 I.P.C. in commission of the crime in question. 7. Learned A.G.A. has also engaged attention of the Court to the statement of Sobhnath Chaurasia recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2000 and though various affidavits which have been filed on record can be taken into consideration by the court concerned but not at this stage and proper appreciation can be done by the court concerned on the facts and circumstances of the case alone. However, it cannot be said that process drawn by moving the complaint is in sheer misuse of the process of the Court. 8. Considered the rival submissions and also the material brought on record. 9. Bare perusal of the contents of the complaint and statement brought on record is a pointer to the allegations specifically made against the applicants and it cannot be said that at this stage, no averment has been made in the complaint regarding involvement of the applicants in the very offence. In view of the clear cut averments contained in the complaint against the present applicants, it cannot be said that proceeding launched is in sheer misuse of the process of the court at this juncture. However, merit of the contents of the complaint can be considered properly by the court concerned, if so urged by the present applicants. It is duty of the lower court first to see that no innocent person is prosecuted without his involvement in the commission of the crime. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground is made out for quashment of the proceeding in Complaint Case No.384 of 2003 Reeta Devi Vs. It is duty of the lower court first to see that no innocent person is prosecuted without his involvement in the commission of the crime. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground is made out for quashment of the proceeding in Complaint Case No.384 of 2003 Reeta Devi Vs. Ramesh Chaurasia, under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the proceeding is refused. 11. Consequently, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 12. It is clarified that observation made in this order shall not travel beyond disposal of this application and will not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.