Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1634 (ALL)

Rajpal v. State of U. P.

2023-07-10

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 02.12.2022 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3520 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, police station Lodha, district Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of daughter of applicant No. 3 was solemnized with the son of opposite party No. 2 on 01.1.2017. Thereafter, daughter of applicant No. 3 lodged a first information report on 02.4.2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband Yogesh Kashyap, Raj Kumari, Lokesh, Mona, Hemesh, Manoj, Jamuna Prasad, Neeraj and Guljari making allegations of demand of dowry and harassment etc. in which charge sheet dated 30.9.2021 was submitted against Yogesh (husband), Raj Kumari (mother-inlaw), Guljari (father-in-law ) and Neeraj (brotherin- law ) of daughter of applicant No. 3 and they are facing trial. So far as this case is concerned, it is submitted that opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint dated 01.12.2020 against the applicants on false and concocted facts in which the applicants have been illegally summoned vide order dated 02.12.2022. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Complaint has been lodged against the applicant as a counter blast. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that upon perusal of complaint and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicants, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The grounds taken in the complaint reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The grounds taken in the complaint reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage. 7. At the stage of taking cognizance of the case and summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused. 8. This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial Court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. 9. The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused. 10. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.