Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 30 (UTT)

Sanjay Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-08

ALOK SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. (1) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the criminal proceedings of criminal complaint case no.320 of 2012, Smt. Meera vs. Sanjay Yadav & others, under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC and to quash the impugned order of cognizance dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. (2) Brief facts of the case are that a marriage was solemnized between applicant no.1-Sanjay Yadav and respondent no.2-Smt. Meera on 08.03.2000 according to Hindu rites and rituals in Haridwar. Out of their wedlock, one child was born on 21.05.2001. The wife had left the company of her husband in the month of February, 2007. Gradually, their relationship became strained, which resulted into a case filed by the husband against his wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Vide order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Family Court, Haridwar, the said case was decreed in favour of husband and the wife was directed to discharge her marital obligations within one month. Thereafter, a case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife for maintenance allowance from her husband. The case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, vide order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Family Court, Haridwar. (3) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife has preferred a time-barred appeal (bearing First Appeal No.24 of 2012) before this Court, which is pending disposal as has been informed by learned counsel for the applicants. (4) Thereafter, a criminal complaint case was filed by the respondent no.2 (wife) against all the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC. After recording of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. coupled with the filing of the documentary evidence, applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC, vide impugned order dated 28.06.2012. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. (5) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (6) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. (5) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (6) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC. Per contra, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that summoning order should not be disturbed by invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot enter into the questions of fact and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further submits that scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and, at this stage, this Court has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out justifying the summoning of the accused or not. (7) After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summoning order passed by learned trial court against the applicants. It is well settled principle of law that the Court would interfere with a summoning order or proceedings of a criminal case only in rarest of cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicants. It is also settled position of law that this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of hearing. I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the applicants at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. (8) Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is going to be caused to the applicants in the case. (8) Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is going to be caused to the applicants in the case. The contentions, which the learned counsel for the applicants has raised before me, can be raised during defence and evidence may also be led on those aspects. (9) Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is dismissed. Interim order dated 14.08.2012 stands vacated. (10) However, it is directed that a liberty is granted to the applicants to file an application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. before the appropriate forum, if they so desire.