Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 497 (UTT)

Krishna Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-09-17

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. The applicants has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') for seeking to set aside the charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2686 of 2018, State vs. Vibhuti Pant and others, u/s 323,504,506,498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I Dehradun. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, on the basis of written report of respondent no.2, an FIR was lodged on 01.03.2018 by the police against the present applicants with the allegations that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized on 29.09.2017 with the applicant no. 4- Vibhuti Pant as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, the accused demanded dowry and started harassing the respondent no. 2 and on 23.12.2017 the applicant no. 4 thrown out the respondent no.2 from her matrimonial house and assaulted her. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet had submitted against the present applicants, u/s 323,504,506,498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is settled position in law that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. 5. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal & others, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, have considered, in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: - 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 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. 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." 6. From the perusal of the FIR which was lodged by the police on the basis of written information given by the respondent no.2, it is clear that the allegation regarding the demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused. But a specific allegation has been mentioned in the FIR that on 23.12.2017 the applicant no.4-Vibhuti Pant had committed marpeet with the respondent no. 2 and abused her and also thrown out from the matrimonial house. 7. But a specific allegation has been mentioned in the FIR that on 23.12.2017 the applicant no.4-Vibhuti Pant had committed marpeet with the respondent no. 2 and abused her and also thrown out from the matrimonial house. 7. From the perusal of the FIR, it is also clear that a general allegation has been made by the respondent no.2 against the applicant nos. 1,2 and 3, while specific allegation has been made against the applicant no.4, who is the husband of respondent no.2. In FIR no date, time, month and year are mentioned when the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 demanded dowry from the respondent no.2 and when they also assaulted her. 8. The allegation made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the applicant nos. 1 to 3 regarding demand of dowry, harassment and marpeet, hence no prima facie case is made out against them to summon, u/s 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the charge sheet submitted against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the same is quashed. 9. As regard, applicant no. 4- Vibhuti Pant is concerned, from the perusal of FIR, a specific allegation has been made that the applicant no. 4 has committed marpeet and thrown out the respondent no.2 from her matrimonial house, on account of demand of dowry on 23.12.2017. 10. It is a matter of evidence whether on the date of said incident the respondent no.2 was at the matrimonial house or not and whether a forged medical certificate was obtained by her. At the present stage, I cannot assess the evidence. But from the perusal of the FIR, and other evidence I came to this conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the applicant no.4- Vibhuti Pant, u/s 323,504,506,498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. In these circumstances, the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be disposed of. Accordingly, charge sheet filed against the applicant nos. 1 to 3, namely, Smt. Krishna Devi, Mukesh Pant and Smt. Pallavi Pant is hereby quashed and Criminal Case No. 2686 of 2018, u/s 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, is also quashed against the aforesaid applicants. Accordingly, charge sheet filed against the applicant nos. 1 to 3, namely, Smt. Krishna Devi, Mukesh Pant and Smt. Pallavi Pant is hereby quashed and Criminal Case No. 2686 of 2018, u/s 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, is also quashed against the aforesaid applicants. It is clear that the trial will proceed against the applicant no. 4- Vibhuti Pant only. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.