Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 204 (UTT)

Ashok Singhal v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-13

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of present criminal misc. application, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the charge-sheet no.152 of 2015 dated 26.09.2015 and the summoning order dated 11.12.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.635 of 2015 State vs. Ashok Singhal and others. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR at P.S. Vikasnagar District Dehradun on 10.7.2015 stating that she got married to the applicant no.3 Nitin Singhal on 29.11.2008 as per Hindu rituals. After few days of the marriage, behaviour of her in-laws became bad towards her and she came to know that her husband's character is not good. The applicants started giving her beatings. She further stated that the applicants were very greedy and they also used to make taunts for dowry. During her pregnancy, the applicants used to beat her due to which she suffered a miscarriage in October 2009. In August 2010 she gave birth to a female child but the applicants' behaviour did not change. After giving beatings to the complainant, the applicants used to oust her from the house and after their demands were fulfilled by her parents she was allowed to enter in the house. In September 2011, she gave birth to a male child. The applicants ousted her from the house due to which she started residing at her parental house. On 16.11.2013 the complainant went to her matrimonial house to talk to her husband but all of a sudden her husband and her in-laws started beating and abusing her in which the complainant sustained injuries. Somehow she could save her life and reached her parental house. Looking to her serious condition, she was taken to a hospital where she was medically examined. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR. The matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On receipt of charge-sheet, trial court took cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicants to face trial under the aforesaid sections. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material brought on record. 4. On receipt of charge-sheet, trial court took cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicants to face trial under the aforesaid sections. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is husband of respondent no.2 and they all have been falsely implicated by the respondent no.2 in the instant case. He would further submit that the allegations made against the applicants are vague and general. There are no specific allegations in regard to their over-act for maltreatment and harassment to the complainant. 5. As regards the impugned summoning order, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order in a mechanical manner, without application of his judicial mind. 6. In the case at hand, on a bare reading of the FIR and the charge sheet thus submitted, foundation of criminal offence is laid against the applicants. 7. Hon'Ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2013 1 SCC(Cri) 986 has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 8. Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 3 SCC 330 has held as under:- "28. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 8. Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 3 SCC 330 has held as under:- "28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held." 9. Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and other, 2015 3 SCC 424 has held that prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned is sufficient for summoning the accused. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder:- "7. Considering the stage at which the criminal complaint is pending and the nature of proposed order, this Court would not like to express any definite opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint petition or upon the defence taken by the accused persons before the courts below or in this Court lest it prejudices one or the other party in future. 8. 8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. 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, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not." 10. Thus, in view of the law enunciated in the judgments (supra), where the factual foundation of the offence is made out, there is no occasion to quash the charge sheet or the criminal proceedings. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. This is not the stage to quash the charge sheet. 11. Since, prima facie case is made out against the applicants, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial in respect of the said offences. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order under challenge, as such, the same needs no interference at this stage. 12. Consequently, present criminal misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.