Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1857 (ALL)

Parashuram v. State of U. P.

2023-08-03

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the case no. 880 of 2012 (State vs. Parashuram & others) arising out of case crime no. 670 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Charkhari on the basis of compromise. 2. Heard Mr. Y.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Brief Holder for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the opposite party no. 2, who is father of the victim, lodged a F.I.R. dated 04.07.2012 with regard to an incident which took place on 02.07.2012 at Case Crime No. 670 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba against the applicants alleging inter-alia that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 26.06.2012 with the applicant no. 1-Parashuram but on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of the accused persons in the marriage, they sent his daughter to his house after committing cruelty with her. F.I.R. further alleges that Parashuram (husband of his daughter) cut her both nipples and also caused injury in her genitals. 4. The victim was medically examined on 04.07.2012 and following injuries were found on her body :- (i) Abrasion of about 2x2 cm in size over left side of cheek 8 cm anterior to tragus. (ii) Amputation of both side of nipple with contusion over the left side of breast. Scab present over the both nipple site. (iii) Abrasion of 1x1/2 cm in size over the left lateral side of leg, 15 cm above from left ankle joint. (iv) Pt complain of pain over the genital and surrounding. As per opinion of the doctor, the injury nos. 1 and 3 are caused by hard and blunt object, whereas the injury no. 2 is caused by sharp edged object, which are grievous in nature. Regarding the injury no. (iv) Pt complain of pain over the genital and surrounding. As per opinion of the doctor, the injury nos. 1 and 3 are caused by hard and blunt object, whereas the injury no. 2 is caused by sharp edged object, which are grievous in nature. Regarding the injury no. 4, no definite opinion can be given by the doctor, therefore, the victim was referred to P.H. Mahoba for MLE of genital and surrounding area for expert opinion. 5. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 15.07.2012 has been submitted against the applicant no.1-Parashuram (husband) under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and charge-sheet dated 26.09.2012 has been submitted against all other five accused persons under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. After framing of charge, trial proceeded and statement of the informant as well as victim who is wife of the applicant no. 1 has been recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 on 29.05.2015, in which they have supported the prosecution case. 6. Here it would be relevant to quote the statement of the victim/PW-2. 7. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that on 07.01.2018, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and in presence of Gram Pradhan and other elite people of village, compromise took place and it was agreed that the accused persons will keep the victim well and in a dignified manner in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the victim and informant moved an application before Civil Judge (J.D.), Mahoba mentioning therein that the victim is living in her matrimonial home for the last two years and she does not want any action in the matter against the accused persons, therefore, the matter may be re-examined in the light of compromise but no order has been passed on the said application. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that now the criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed. 8. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that now the criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants by contending that the allegations levelled against the applicants are heinous in nature. It is a case of extreme cruelty which is not private in nature but against the society at large, therefore, criminal proceeding/trial against the applicants, which is at the advanced stage, cannot be quashed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 did not oppose the prayer of the applicants. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that as per allegations against the applicants on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the applicant no. 6-Smt. Kashi Bai and applicant no. 5-Smt. Kamlesh held the hand of the victim and applicant no. 1-Parashuram, who is husband of the victim, cut her both nipples with a sharp edged weapon like a blade/knife. The victim shouted but the applicant no. 4-Badalua kept her mouth shut. Applicant no. 3-Rajesh Prajapati and applicant no. 2-Dhaniram Prajapati were holding her leg and she was beaten with slippers. "Sambal" was also put in her genital as they were asking to bring Rs. 50,000/-cash and a car from her parent that is why all this cruelty was done with the victim. I also find that the victim, in her examination-in-chief, recorded before the trial court has supported the prosecution case and also stated that both of the nipple of her body are no more and permanently separated. Her husband-Parashuram had inserted “sambal'' in her genital, due to which bleeding has come out. The incident took place in her bedroom where lantern was burning. She screamed but no one came. She was suffering from pain till morning and no treatment was done in the morning. This Court is of the view that it is a case of extreme cruelty and barbarian act on the part of accused persons, while daughters-in-law's are pride of the house. Such incident are beyond imagination and it is a rare case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Such incident are beyond imagination and it is a rare case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 10. It need no emphasis that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or First Information Report may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The gravity and nature of the crime are the relevant consideration before exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences which involve moral turpitude or moral fabric of the society or have the potential to impact the society at large cannot be fittingly quashed even the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. 11. As a fallout and consequence of above discussion, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the applicants. The relief as sought for by the applicants is not liable to be allowed. 12. The application lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. 13. The copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court within a week.