Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2723 (ALL)

Neha Gupta v. State of U. P.

2019-12-06

RAJENDRA KUMAR IV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant Smt. Neha Gupta approached this Court for quashing the Charge Sheet No.564 of 2018, dated 22.12.2018 submitted in Case Crime No.744 of 2018 (Session Trial No.51 of 2019) under Sections 302, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Shahabad, Distirct Rampur and entire proceedings thereof. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Informant Abhinav Gupta submitted an application in Police Station Shahabad, Distirct Rampur stating that he was married to Neha Gupta one and half years back. After some days relation between husband and wife became strained due to rude behaviour of his wife. Often she used to abuse his mother and after one and half years about she left his house and started living in her maternal house and so many false complaints have been lodged by her against him and his mother. On 26.10.2018 at about 02:00 PM accused-applicant Neha Gupta came to his house with one Sub Inspector Sunder Lal and she abused him, tried to quarrel before Sub Inspector. Sub Inspector Sunder Lal went away from there but Neha stayed there. At about 07:00 PM her family member i.e. her mother Kiran Devi, father Narendra and brother Anand came to his house and started beating him and his mother with intention to kill; they poured kerosene oil on his mother and set her fire, on hearing noise his neighbour Monu came there, he admitted his mother in Shahabad Hospital where from she was referred to District Hospital Rampur, later on to Ishan Hospital Bareilly. On the application of Abhinav Gupta a case under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC was registered as Crime No.744 of 2018 agianst Neha, Kiran Devi, Narendra and Anand. 3. Victim Asha Rani succumbed to death due to burn injury, in dying declaration she made statement in support of prosecution. Matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against four persons including present applicant. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the charge sheet, accused-applicant filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the same as well as entire proceedings. 5. I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that no case is made out against the applicant. 5. I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that no case is made out against the applicant. She has falsely been implicated for the purpose of harassment and humiliation. Investigating Officer did not investigated and collected material properly in the matter and submitted charge sheet without any sufficient evidence. He further submitted that admittedly Neha Gupta is legally wedded wife of Informant and there was a matrimonial dispute between both which are still pending in respective Courts. She did not committed any offence. Investigating Officer of the case is interested persons. He showed some papers, statement of witnesses in favour of his contention. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant made a long debate showing and reciting the statement of witnesses. 8. Learned AGA for State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the charge sheet and submitted that on the fateful day accused persons along-with present applicant came to the house of Informant; started quarrel and poured kerosene oil on victim Asha Rani who sustained serious burn injuries and succumbed to death. Victim has given a dying declaration, showing the conduct of accused persons, before her death. Investigating Officer, correctly, conducted investigation and found sufficient evidence against the accused persons submitted charge sheet in the Court concerned. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records. 10. Before I enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 11. It is settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 12. 11. It is settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 12. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 , Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781 , M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74 . 13. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781 , M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74 . 13. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, reported in, 1977 (2) SCC 699 , the Court held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 14. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of Court, Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: “102. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: “102. 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds 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 FIR 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 FIR 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. (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 is 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.” 15. In Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008 (8) SCC 232 , Court observed that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima-facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. 16. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, reported in, (2008) 1 SCC 157, the Court held that : "20. So far as the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, the same has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions and illustrative circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings have been enumerated. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make reference to the decisions on the point. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make reference to the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Court under the said provision are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The inherent powers possessed by the High Court are to be exercised very carefully and with great caution so that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where the High Court is convinced that 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 or where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the 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, the powers of the High Court under the said provision should be exercised." 17. Present case does not appear to be covered in any category given in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra). 18. From perusal of allegations made in the FIR, statement of witnesses during investigation, charge sheet submitted by Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the accused-applicant and charge sheet has been wrongly submitted. 19. All the submissions made at bar raised to the disputed question of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.