Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2438 (ALL)

Kirti v. State of U. P.

2023-10-28

GAJENDRA KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : GAJENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. Since these applications arising out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State-respondents. 3. The instant Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a request to quash the Case No. 1643 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the Court of ACJM - VIII, Ghaziabad. 4. The prosecution story in brief of the instant case are as follows: Marriage of applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 14.02.2019 at Destination Resort, Solan, Himanchal Pradesh according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Thereafter, on 24.02.2019, the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) along with opposite party no. 2 left for USA, where they have blessed with a son on 02.02.2010 in USA and all were living there happily, but due to some difference of opinion, the relationship between applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) and opposite party no. 2 became strained, thereafter, applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) filed a complaint for divorce on 09.02.2012 before Oakland County, Circuit Court, Family Division, State of Michigan. In the said case, an ex-parte interim order regarding custody and parenting time was passed on 10.02.2012 by the concerned Judge of Family Court directing the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) and opposite party no. 2 not to change the domicile and residence of the minor child from the State of Michigan without a written order from the Court. Thereafter, on 23.03.2012, an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no. 2, though, an FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and three other co-accused persons with false and frivolous allegations, which was registered as Case Crime No. 02 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad. Prior to filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and three other co-accused persons with false and frivolous allegations, which was registered as Case Crime No. 02 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad. Prior to filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 had made a complaint before S.S.P. Ghaziabad, in which the SHO was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report, thereafter, making a thorough enquiry by SHO concerned, submitted the report mentioning therein that there is no truth in the complaint of opposite party no. 2 and no further legal action is required in the complaint. Opposite party no. 2 had also moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is still pending consideration. On 26.04.2012, the American Court has issued warrant of arrest of opposite party no. 2 as she has violated order of the Court in relation to carrying away minor child, who is U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in U.S.A. and carried him to India. On 26.05.2012, I.O. without conducting a proper and fair investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and three other co-accused persons under the aforesaid sections. On 29.05.2012, in the divorce petition filed by the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) against the opposite party no. 2, even the concerned Judge of Family Court, State of Michigan has passed an order dissolving the marriage between the parties. 4.1 It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the malicious proceedings have been lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the entire family members including the present applicants, who are ‘Nanand’ and husband of opposite party no. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) left for USA along with his wife (opposite party no. 2) as applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) was residing in New York (USA) and was working as a Post Doctorate Fellowship in Nuclear Medicine in Memorial Saloan Katering Hospital, New York (USA). He further submitted that father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 have already been granted bail by the court below and they are facing criminal prosecution. 2) as applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) was residing in New York (USA) and was working as a Post Doctorate Fellowship in Nuclear Medicine in Memorial Saloan Katering Hospital, New York (USA). He further submitted that father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 have already been granted bail by the court below and they are facing criminal prosecution. Further submission is that there is contradictions in the F.I.R. version and statement of witnesses. Further submission is that after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in a perfunctory manner and the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a mechanical way without application of judicial mind. Further submission is that only intension behind lodging of the impugned F.I.R. of opposite party no. 2 was to blackmail the husband and his family and to create undue pressure upon them, as such, the present criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law, which is liable to be quashed. 5. In this regard, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicants upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, 1994 AIR 853, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank - loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 6. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank - loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 6. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others vs. Government of A.P. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5097 of 2004, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. Even the Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” 7. Therefore, it is settled principle of law that, decree or order obtained by fraud by the first Court or by the final court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Lord Denning had observed that in the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 , that “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud.” 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699 and State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and submits that whole proceedings have been re-initiated with ulterior and oblique motive to harass the applicants and to tarnish their image in the society and use the process of Court to permeate injustice. 9. (1977) 2 SCC 699 and State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and submits that whole proceedings have been re-initiated with ulterior and oblique motive to harass the applicants and to tarnish their image in the society and use the process of Court to permeate injustice. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as Opposite Party No. 2 has lodged the First Information Report with unclean hands and has made material concealment, in order to mislead the police as well as the learned trial court, therefore, the cognizance order being obtained through fraud renders the same untenable in the eyes of law. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings of the above-mentioned criminal case against the applicants in nothing but an abuse of process of law, which are liable to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand, the victim/Opposite party number 2 was harassed and tortured by the applicants and his family members. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance by the Magistrate as per the provisions contained in Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. the concerned Magistrate has to see as to whether prima facie case is being made out or not against the applicants and, as such, the concerned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet dated 26.05.2012 filed by the Investigating Officer including the statements of the witnesses and documents collected during the investigation, as such, this Court may not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present case, and, hence, the present application is liable to be rejected. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that applicants were involved in committing the aforesaid offence as has been alleged in the impugned FIR and chargesheet were also submitted by the Investigating Officer against them. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that applicants were involved in committing the aforesaid offence as has been alleged in the impugned FIR and chargesheet were also submitted by the Investigating Officer against them. In case, applicants have any grievance, they may raise their grievances at appropriate forum, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned cognizance order passed by the learned court below and the same cannot be quashed at this stage. 12. In response to the notice issued to the respondents, a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 Reeta Kapoor (mother of opposite party no. 2) wife of Bhavnesh Dutt Kapoor, aged about 67 years have been filed mentioning therein that applicants and their family members always causes cruelty with the opposite party no. 2 and several times tortured mentally and physically, which is evident from the doctor’s report. It has also been mentioned that after the birth of the baby boy, mother-in-law and husband did not allow the opposite party no. 2 to breastfeed the child. Upon the protest by the opposite party no. 2, her husband and his mother tried to choke her throat by inserting almonds in her mouth, one of the attending medical personnal at hospital heard the noise and came running to attend her, as such, due to repeated acts of cruelty the opposite party no. 2 reported to the domestic assaults in Planned Parenthood. 13. In reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant (Smt. Kirti), by Kailash Prashar (father of the applicant) son of Kishori Lal Parashar, Aged 69 years, wherein he has denied all the allegations made in the counter affidavit as well as in the impugned FIR and mentioned that only with a view to harass the applicants and his family members, impugned criminal proceedings have been lauched by the opposite party no. 2. 14. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perusal of the records as well as impugned FIR, it is evident that Opposite party no. 2 was married with applicant (Dr. 2. 14. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perusal of the records as well as impugned FIR, it is evident that Opposite party no. 2 was married with applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) on 10.02.2019 and she remained with her-in-laws in India for a period of ten days and left for USA on 24.02.2019 and after remaining there, delivered a baby boy out of the wedlock. Some differences arose between the parties as both are mature, educated and well qualified. Proceedings for divorce were undertaking in the Family Court in USA and certain orders were passed by the Family Court regarding the parenting and non-shifting of domicile/residence of the child who is the citizen of USA, but she obtained duplicate passport left for India and herein Ghaziabad lodged FIR against her husband and entire family members. There is no plausible explanation of the delay in lodging the FIR. It appears that simply omnibus and vague allegations of cruelty are made against the husband and his family members only in order to harass and coerce them. 15. The Court has occasion to go through the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Varala Bharath Kumar vs. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413 . Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as follows: “8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.” 16. Further in the present case, it is also seen that only omnibus and general allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry have been made, against the husband and his family members. Further it is seen that only general and omnibus allegation of demand of dowry has been made in the First Information Report which is in the teeth of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, 2022 Live Law (SC) 141 whereby such practice by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been deprecated and it has been held that the accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of such allegations. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 17. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh Bansal vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Cri. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 17. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh Bansal vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Cri. Revision No. 1126 of 2022) has given its opinion on the growing tendency of misusing the provisions of Section 498A IPC has held as under: “Now, coming to the precise question involved in the present case has to level the omnibus allegations of dowry related harassment of all the family members connected with the husband in recent judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana, 2018 (14) SCC 452 , it was observed by Hon’ble the Apex Court that the Court should be extremely careful and vigilant in proceeding against the distant relative of the husband in the crimes pertaining to the dispute even in dowry deaths. All the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless Specific Instances of the involvement in the crime as alleged and surfaced during investigation with materials certainty. The sweeping and general allegations are very frequent now-a-days and if such people are put to trial on such a casual and omnibus allegations, it would bound to lead the disastrous result and unwarranted hardships to those persons.” 18. The powers conferred by section 482 Cr.P.C. was widely discussed in various cases as in the Case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 102 has held as follows: “102. The powers conferred by section 482 Cr.P.C. was widely discussed in various cases as in the Case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 102 has held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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. (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 Act concerned (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.” 19. Recently In the case of Salif @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023 and Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3152 of 2023 vide order dated 08.08.2023 Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.” 20. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2021 SC 1918 , the Hon’ble Apex Court defined the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution of India and observed that if a case falls under the parameters of R.P. Kapur case (supra) and Bhajan Lal case (supra) then this Court is having jurisdiction to quash the proceedings by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 21. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.” 22. In Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the 12 particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.” 23. In Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “On the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.” 24. In case of Prabhatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , a three three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is pre-faced with an overriding provision and this Court being a superior Court has the inherent power to make such order as necessary: “(i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court. (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 22. In case of Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 22. In case of Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 also Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.” 22.1 Finally, in a similar case, a Bench of Three Judges of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sundar Babu and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 3 SCR 326, has observed as under: HELD: 1.1. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Sec.482 CrPC is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 3 SCR 326, has observed as under: HELD: 1.1. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Sec.482 CrPC is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down. therein are as follows: (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 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 Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.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 Sec. 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 an 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. [Para 6] [332-8-H; 333-A-C] 1.2. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. [Para 6] [332-8-H; 333-A-C] 1.2. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefere, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid a/icui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). [Para 9] [333-EH; 334-A-B] 1.3. While exercising powers under section 482, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. [Para 9) [334-8-E] 1.4. The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [Para 1OJ [334-E-H; 335-A] 1.5. In the present case, even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within the category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s case. The proceedings in Criminal Petition pending before the Judicial Magistrate are consequently quashed. [Paras 7 and 10) [333-D] 23. For all the reasons recorded above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the case-laws cited above and the case on hand falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra), the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants namely Smt. Kirti and Dr. Kalind Parashar pending in the court of ACJM-VIII, Ghaziabad vide Case No. 1643 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act are, hereby, quashed. 24. Kalind Parashar pending in the court of ACJM-VIII, Ghaziabad vide Case No. 1643 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act are, hereby, quashed. 24. Accordingly, the Applications are allowed. 25. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.