Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 366 (UTT)

Robert Alwin v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-06-15

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this present C482 application, the applicant has challenged the charge-sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 485 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (for short “the Act”) Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar; cognizance and summoning order dated 01.05.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1095 of 2015, State Vs. Robert Alwin and Others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act, 1961. 2. On 28.12.2014, at about 10:03 hours, a First Information Report was lodged by respondent no.2 against all the applicants, who happened to be her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, on the basis of which, a Case Crime No. 0485 of 2014 under Sections 504, 323, 506, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Act was registered against the applicants. 3. The case of the private respondent as unfolded in the First Information Report, in short, is that both the private respondent and applicant no.1 got married on 02.05.2014, according to the Christian rites and rituals at C.N.I Church, Roorkee, Haridwar. The marriage was arranged through matrimonial and respondent no.1 is the resident of Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It is stated in the First Information Report that on 14.05.2014, the private respondent along with her husband went to Chennai, where she started her matrimonial obligations with her husband and his family members. It is further stated that before their marriage applicant no.1 – Robert Alwin has told the private respondent that he was working in a private company in America and after their marriage, applicant no.1 – husband and private respondent – wife would leave for America. But soon after their marriage, applicants’ behaviour towards the private respondent was changed and they started using abusive language against her and committed Maar-Peet with her. When asked, from applicant no.1 as to when he had to leave for America, applicant no.1 threatened respondent no.2 – wife, with life and asked her to bring 2 kg. gold from her parents saying that in their region gold is given during marriage as per custom. Private respondent in the First Information Report implicated all the applicants saying that they all supported applicant no.1 in his indecent behaviour committed Maar-Peet with her. gold from her parents saying that in their region gold is given during marriage as per custom. Private respondent in the First Information Report implicated all the applicants saying that they all supported applicant no.1 in his indecent behaviour committed Maar-Peet with her. Private respondent also submitted in the F.I.R that on one occasion applicant no.1 hit her at her eyes and she was badly hurt, but none of the family members gave treatment to her and continued with the harassment and even denied food to her. On 24.09.2014, respondent no.2 was driven out of the house saying that she could only be permitted to remain in the house if she would bring 2 kg. of gold from her parental house and would sponsor the applicant-no.1 to go to America. 4. It is reflected from the record that after this incident, on the very same day, on 24.09.2014 private respondent reported the incident to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and to the District Magistrate, Chennai. On 26.09.2014, the incident was reported to Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is noticeable that along with these two reports, the photocopy of the receipt of registered post sent on 24.09.2014 to the District Magistrate, Chennai and Senior Superintendent of Police, Chennai are also annexed. 5. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2015 against all the applicants and cognizance was taken against them as stated in the order dated 01.05.2018. 6. It has been informed by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.3 – Smt. Chillal wife of Shri Sebastian, has expired, during the pendency of this C482 petition. Qua applicant no.3 – Smt. Chillal w/o Shri Sebastian, the C482 application rendered infructuous, and is dismissed as infructuous. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the F.I.R. lodged on 28.12.2014 is a delayed one, inasmuch as, it has been lodged after a period of almost three months is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. 8. In order to substantiate his argument, he has submitted that the reports, which have been submitted by private respondent to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai do not have the details as detailed in the subsequent F.I.R on 28.12.2014. 9. 8. In order to substantiate his argument, he has submitted that the reports, which have been submitted by private respondent to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai do not have the details as detailed in the subsequent F.I.R on 28.12.2014. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that information of harassment to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the District Magistrate, Chennai have been lodged on advice of the brother of the private respondent, who had sent it through e-mail. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the counter affidavit, just to show that due to the precarious condition of private respondent, the brother of respondent no.2 – Mayank Massi on hearing a call from her sister, booked air tickets to go to Chennai, to bring her back. It is submitted that brother of respondent no.2 – Mayank Massi went to Chennai on 28.09.2014 and on the very next date, taking a Taatkal ticket of Railway, he took his sister with him and returned to Roorkee on 29.09.2014. Both the air and railway tickets have been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure Nos.2 and 3. 11. Contradicting the arguments of delay in lodging the First Information Report at the hands of the private respondent, it is submitted by learned counsel for the private respondent that in matrimonial cases, most of the time, it is endeavour of the family to patch up the matter between the parties, in order to save the family or matrimonial life of the parties. The harassment and the maltreatment is reflected from the prompt information submitted by the private respondent to the Police at Chennai. It is evident that the relation between the applicant no.1 and his family with private respondent was not up to the mark and rather it was harassment to the private respondent. It is on this background, brother of private respondent advised her to report. There is nothing strange in it. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal from the material available on record, this Court finds that contents of the F.I.R discloses commission of the cognizable offence of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act. There is nothing strange in it. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal from the material available on record, this Court finds that contents of the F.I.R discloses commission of the cognizable offence of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act. So far as the argument of lodging the information with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and District Magistrate, Chennai at the dictates of the brother is concerned, I have given a thoughtful consideration to it and find that in the situation where the private respondent was staying at a long distance from Roorkee in Chennai, where there was no one to help her, she could only cry for help from her brother and after the consolation and advice from her brother, the matter was reported to the Police. There is nothing unusual that the information was given to the Chennai Police and District Magistrate, Chennai on advice of her brother. 13. The applicants, herein are seeking to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) for quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order. It is fairly settled legal proposition that powers under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of the rare cases. Such proposition has been enunciated in a number of cases, time and again viz., R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and very recently, a Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein certain essential principles have been enunciated, which are to be borne in mind while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. 14. In view of the settled proposition of law as stated above, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent power to scuttle the prosecution at the stage of summoning order after filing of the charge-sheet. The contents of the F.I.R., which have been investigated by the Police resulted into filing of the impugned chargesheet. 14. In view of the settled proposition of law as stated above, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent power to scuttle the prosecution at the stage of summoning order after filing of the charge-sheet. The contents of the F.I.R., which have been investigated by the Police resulted into filing of the impugned chargesheet. There is no reason to interfere in the summoning order dated 01.05.2015, which has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the Police report submitted after investigation. Accordingly, C482 petition is hereby dismissed. 15. Interim order dated 26.04.2016 hereby stands vacated.