Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 558 (ALL)

Vishram v. State of U. P.

2023-02-24

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Complaint Case No.1087 of 2021 (Awadhesh vs. Avanish & Others), under Sections 304B, 342 IPC, Police Station-Ushait, District-Budaun, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. 4. As per the prosecution case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 08.01.2021 by brother of the deceased against the applicants and three others alleging therein that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with applicant no.2 (Avanish) on 26.06.2018 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and the family members of the opposite party no.2 had given dowry as per their capacity, but the deceased was being harassed for non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand. On 31.12.2020 at about 03:00 p.m., an information was received by the informant/opposite party no.2 from the villager that the deceased was done to death by her in-laws. On receiving the information, when the informant, his father Naresh and brother Ramesh reached at in-laws' place, they were wrongly confined by family members of the in-laws of the deceased and without informing the police, the last rites were performed. It is also alleged that the deceased was done to death for non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand. Thereafter, the informant went to the concerned police station for lodging the FIR, but no attention was paid, therefore, the present complaint has been filed. Subsequently, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned. Hence, the present application U/s 482 has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to the reasons best known to him. He further submits that the complaint has been lodged after a delay of about eight days of the incident without giving any plausible explanation for the same. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to the reasons best known to him. He further submits that the complaint has been lodged after a delay of about eight days of the incident without giving any plausible explanation for the same. The allegations as made in the complaint are false and frivolous against the applicants because the deceased died a natural death as she was suffering from some ailment for which document has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit. He further submits that father and other family members of the deceased as well as the police were present at the time of cremation, video has been recorded, however, after participating in the cremation, the present complaint has been lodged in order to harass the applicants though the deceased died a natural death. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that the applicant nos.1&2 are the father-in-law and husband of the deceased respectively. The death of the victim was within seven years from her marriage. She has died in her in-laws' house and it was unnatural death. She was subjected to cruelty due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. He further submits that the document annexed at page 81 of the application goes to show that the applicants have returned the belongings of the deceased as well as gifts, which are given at the time of marriage, which goes to show that there were some disputes between the parties and after death of the deceased in order to save their skin, the applicants have returned the aforesaid things. From the documents regarding treatment, it cannot be analyzed as to whether the deceased was suffering from such serious disease which resulted in her death. From the documents regarding treatment, it cannot be analyzed as to whether the deceased was suffering from such serious disease which resulted in her death. He further submits that there are specific allegations against the applicants in the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 8. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 9. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint, except, in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. 10. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "103. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. 10. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 11. The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............." 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held that though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are wide, however, such powers require care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It was clarified that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 13. In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. 14. In the instant case, perusal of the complaint as a whole, this Court finds that the death of the victim was within seven years from her marriage. She has died in her in-laws' house and it was unnatural death. She was subjected to cruelty due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The Court also finds it difficult to hold that a case, for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, has been made out. Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC only because the compliant has been lodged by malicious intention. In exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The compliant before the learned Magistrate is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception without further trial. 15. The compliant before the learned Magistrate is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception without further trial. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 16. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.