Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1231 (ALL)

Chandrajeet Prajapati v. State of U. P.

2024-05-07

MAYANK KUMAR JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT : MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicants, Mrs. Abha Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal complaint dated 31.03.2016 as well as the entire proceedings registered in pursuance thereof as criminal complaint case no. 6440 of 2021 (CNR No. UPJP040115332016, initially numbered as criminal complaint case no. 399 of 2016), Bhanu Pratap vs. Chandrajeet & others, under Sections 302/149, 325, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, including the summoning order dated 28.09.2023. It is also prayed to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. are that:- 3.1. Opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Shashiprabha was solemnized on 09.07.1999 with Chandrajeet Prajapati. Shashiprabha was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. When Shashiprabha was living with the informant in her maternal house, her husband used to frequently visit Kanpur. Her husband continued to take financial assistance from the informant. On 19.05.2014, Shashiprabha and her daughters were sent back with the applicant when he promised to keep her happy. 3.2. On the night of 10.06.2014, applicants forcibly administered Shashiprabha some medicines and strangulated her. When she became unconscious under the influence of these medicines, she was beaten up by a rod to death. The applicants got her admitted to Pragya Hospital and had taken money from the informant. The two daughters of Shashiprabha, namely, Himanshi and Divyanshi are the eyewitnesses of the incident. 3.3. The informant had seen the injuries on the person of his daughter. He attempted to lodge a report with the Police Station. The concerned S.H.O. hurled abuses at him and did not conduct the post-mortem of the deceased. 3.4. The informant approached this Court and filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no. 2440 of 2015. Pursuant to the order passed in this application, the first information was lodged as crime no. 673 of 2015 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. 4. The concerned S.H.O. hurled abuses at him and did not conduct the post-mortem of the deceased. 3.4. The informant approached this Court and filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no. 2440 of 2015. Pursuant to the order passed in this application, the first information was lodged as crime no. 673 of 2015 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. 4. On the basis of aforementioned FIR, the investigation was set into motion. After the investigation, the story of the prosecution was found to be false and not supported by any medical, inquest, and post-mortem report. The investigating officer submitted the final report. The first informant filed a protest petition. The learned court concerned vide its order dated 23.08.2017, rejected the final report and the investing officer was directed to conduct further investigation in the matter. 5. In furtherance to the investigation, the investigation officer, recorded the statements of the witnesses as well the applicants. He again submitted the final report and initiated proceedings under section 182 I.P.C. against the first informant. 6. The first informant filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint. Statement of the first informant was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses such as Himanshi Prajapati (daughter of deceased), Sushma Prajapati, Seema Prajapati (sisters), Mewalal Prajapati, Doodhnath Prajapati (Uncles), Jitendra Kumar prajapati (brother) were recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of primary oral evidence, vide order dated 28.09.2023 summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 302/ 149, 325 and 201 IPC. 8. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Shashiprabha died on 10.06.2014 as a result of medical contingency. The first information report has been lodged after eight months of the incident by the informant. At the time of the treatment as well as the cremation of Shashiprabha, opposite party no. 2 and her family members remained present in the hospital and at the cremation ground respectively. The death certificate of Shashiprabha is brought on record which discloses the cause of her death as Cardiac arrest. 9. It is further submitted that no injury was found on the person of the deceased when she was admitted to the hospital by applicant no. 1. With the consent of the first informant inquest and post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted. The first informant had taken the daughters of the deceased with him after cremation. 10. 9. It is further submitted that no injury was found on the person of the deceased when she was admitted to the hospital by applicant no. 1. With the consent of the first informant inquest and post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted. The first informant had taken the daughters of the deceased with him after cremation. 10. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicants that during the period of further investigation, opposite party No. 2 filed the present complaint. The daughters of the deceased are residing with opposite party no. 2. Therefore they were under the influence and had given their statement against the applicants. They were tutored by their Nanaand other family members. It is also argued that at the time of the death of Shashiprabha, Himanshi was aged around ten years and Divyanshi was around two and half years old. It is highly improbable that children of such tender age could remember the incident so accurately. The manner in which the statement was given by the daughters of the deceased, indicates that they were tutored. The post-mortem of the deceased was not conducted since it was a natural death and with the consent of the opposite party no. 2, her last rites were performed in his presence. It is also submitted that it was in fact the applicants who admitted the deceased at Pragya Hospital, Varanasi for treatment. Applicant No. 1 is regularly paying maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/-per month to each of his two daughters. 11. It is also submitted that in the absence of any medical report on record, no offence u/s 325 I.P.C. is made out against applicants. Since Shashiprabha died due to cardiac arrest and her death was natural, therefore, there is no evidence that would indicate that her death was homicidal. In the absence of the inquest and post-mortem reports, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. Opposite party no. 2 and his family members were present at the time of treatment and cremation of deceased Shashiprabha. There is no evidence on record that the applicants have caused the disappearance of any evidence. Therefore, no offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 12. Opposite party no. 2 and his family members were present at the time of treatment and cremation of deceased Shashiprabha. There is no evidence on record that the applicants have caused the disappearance of any evidence. Therefore, no offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 12. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 5 SC 435 which reads as under:- 16. We find it imperative to observe that this is a case that should not have been allowed to reach as far as this Court. The justice dispensation machinery in India is plagued with backlogs, with 70% of the pendency before the subordinate courts being on the criminal side. A significant factor in this backlog is the vast mass of frivolous litigation instituted year after year by litigants with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a crucial step towards a more effective justice system— a step that cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings. 17. Immediately after the criminal justice system is set in motion, its course is almost entirely dependent on the judicial application of mind by the Magistrate. When a police complaint is filed on the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 CrPC, the Magistrate decides if the charge against the accused person is made out before the trial begins. Separate procedure is prescribed if the complaint under Section 200 CrPC is filed. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the Magistrate carries the stream of criminal proceeding forward after it is set in motion by the informant/complainant. Consequently, and automatically, the Magistrate also carries the responsibility for ensuring this stream does not carry forward in cases where it should not 18. The aforesaid powers bestowed on the Magistrate have grave repercussions on individual citizens' life and liberty. Thus, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the Magistrate and must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind. Observations in a similar vein were made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (SCC p. 760, para 28) "28. Thus, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the Magistrate and must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind. Observations in a similar vein were made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (SCC p. 760, para 28) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." This Court, thus, clearly emphasised that the power to issue a summoning order is a matter of grave importance, and that the Magistrate must only allow criminal law to take its course after satisfying himself that there is a real case to be made. 19. Similarly, the power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 202 CrPC to postpone the issue of process pursuant to a private complaint also provides an important avenue for filtering out of frivolous complaints that must be fully exercised. A four-Judge Bench of this Court has eloquently expounded on this in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose (AIR p. 1433, para 7) "7. A four-Judge Bench of this Court has eloquently expounded on this in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose (AIR p. 1433, para 7) "7. … No doubt, one of the objects behind the provisions of Section 202 CrPC is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interests of an absent accused person, but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complainant." Thus, it is clear that, on receipt of a private complaint, the Magistrate must first, scrutinise it to examine if the allegations made in the private complaint, inter alia, smack of an instance of frivolous litigation; and second, examine and elicit the material that supports the case of the complainant." 13. Further, learned counsel placed reliance on Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SC 330 which reads as under:- 39. Despite the conclusion recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there should have been no difficulty whatsoever for the High Court to have exercised its judicial conscience for invoking the power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. From the narration of the facts recorded above, it emerges that even though the respondent complainant Madan Lal Kapoor in his complaint dated 6-7-1993 adopted a clear and categorical stance, that his daughter Dr Monica Thapar had been poisoned to death, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the respondent complainant ventured to suggest that the appellant-accused had strangulated her. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, summoned two of the doctors who were members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post-mortem examination, and sought clarifications from them. He also recorded the statement of one of the said doctors. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, summoned two of the doctors who were members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post-mortem examination, and sought clarifications from them. He also recorded the statement of one of the said doctors. The Additional Sessions Judge, thereupon, ruled out the plea of strangulation. When the respondent complainant himself was uncertain about the manner in which his daughter had allegedly died, the High Court should have viewed the matter keeping in mind the likelihood of the hurt caused to a father who had lost his daughter within one year of her marriage. The matter needed to have been evaluated on the basis of one of the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, namely, whether the criminal proceedings initiated by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) were actuated by malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to some private/ personal grudge. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the argument and submitted that two daughters of the deceased are the eyewitnesses of the incident. During the investigation, a site plan was also prepared on their pointing. Shashiprabha was living with her parents since the applicants were harassing her. Applicant no. 1 started visiting her at her maternal house. He took her back with him few days before the incident on 19.05.2014. She died on 10.06.2014. 15. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that Himanshi and Divyanshi, the daughters of applicant no. 1 and the deceased have deposed before the court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. about the incident and the manner in which the crime was committed by the applicants. Sushma Prajapati, Seema Prajapati (sister of the deceased), Mevalal Prajapati, Doodhnath Prajapati (uncle of the deceased), and Jitendra Kumar (brother of the deceased) were also produced as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The informant and the witnesses consistently supported the version of the complaint. 16. It is also submitted that the applicants conspired with the police and did not let the inquest and post-mortem of the deceased be conducted. The informant and his witnesses had seen swelling around her neck. Her teeth were broken and blood was oozing out from her mouth. The Investigating officer was under the influence of the applicants. Therefore, a fair investigation was not conducted by him. The informant and his witnesses had seen swelling around her neck. Her teeth were broken and blood was oozing out from her mouth. The Investigating officer was under the influence of the applicants. Therefore, a fair investigation was not conducted by him. Despite sufficient evidence against the applicants, he submitted a final report in favour of the applicants on two separate occasions. It is also submitted that the motive of the incident was that applicant no. 1 was having illicit relations with her Bhabhi. 17. Perused the record. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar VS State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 has considered the principles, scope, and ambit of the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held that:- "6. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and reiterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259] , this Court observed : (SCC p. 10, paras 23-24): "23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute." 7. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court's extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court's hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] noted that quashing may be appropriate where: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "102. … (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) *** (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." 8. In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3100], (Dhruvaram Sonar) : (SCC para 13) "13. It is clear that for quashing the proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers." 19. This is an admitted fact that the deceased Shashiprabha was the wife of applicant no. 1. Her death certificate is brought on record which mentions the cause of death as ‘Cardiac arrest at 6 P.M’. 20. Statement of Dr. A.K. Srivastava was recorded by the investigating officer. He stated that Shashiprabha was suffering from a high fever. When she was admitted, she told him that she was suffering from some mental disorder and was receiving treatment at Kanpur. He further informed that she did not make any complaint against her in-laws. She was referred to higher center for treatment. No external injury was noted on the person of Shashiprabha. No sign of consumption of any substance was observed. 21. Prima facie, it has to be established that the death of Shashiprabha was homicidal. The inquest and the post-mortem of the deceased was not conducted. Opposite party no. 2 and his witnesses admitted in their statement that they were present at the time of the cremation of Shashiprabha. No medical report is brought on record which can indicate that at the time of her death, she sustained any injury on her person. Merely on the sole statement of her daughter Himanshi, in absence of any medical/inquest/post-mortem report, it cannot be concluded that Shashiprabha died a homicidal death. Himanshi is said to have been the only eye witness of the incident. But, her evidence is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. Merely on the sole statement of her daughter Himanshi, in absence of any medical/inquest/post-mortem report, it cannot be concluded that Shashiprabha died a homicidal death. Himanshi is said to have been the only eye witness of the incident. But, her evidence is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The witness produced under Section 202 Cr.P.C. repeated the same statement as given by Himanshi although, they are not the eye witnesses of the incident. 22. Perusal of the record goes to show that during his additional statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant requested the investigating officer to anyhow send his son-in-law behind the bars. This statement shows the malice on the part of the informant. 23. It is also worthwhile to note that since the cremation of the deceased and up until their deposition before the court, Himanshi resided with the informant. Since she was in the continuous custody of opposite party no. 2, therefore, it can very well be presumed that she was under the influence of opposite party No. 2 and was tutored to give such statement. 24. Opposite party no. 2 gave his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the information received by him from Himanshi. He made no complaint about the harassment or cruelty committed by applicants towards Shashiprabh during her matrimonial period as alleged by him during his statement. So far as the statement of P.W. 2, Sushma, Seema Prajapati, Doodhnath, and Jitendra Kumar, are concerned, that when they saw the dead body of Shashiprabha, her front teeth were broken and there was a mark around her neck and her tongue had come out of mouth, no immediate alarm was raised by them. They did not prevent the applicants to perform last rites of the deceased sanspost-mortem being carried out. Instead, they attended her last rites without any objection. 25. No statement of Shashiprabha was recorded before her death. The informant admitted that he along with his family members attended to her in the hospital. In the absence of a medical report, prima facie, no offence under Section 325 I.P.C. appears to be made out against the applicant. Similarly, in the absence of an inquest/post-mortem report, it cannot be construed that the death of Shashiprabha was homicidal. Therefore, prima facie, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. can be made out. In the absence of a medical report, prima facie, no offence under Section 325 I.P.C. appears to be made out against the applicant. Similarly, in the absence of an inquest/post-mortem report, it cannot be construed that the death of Shashiprabha was homicidal. Therefore, prima facie, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. can be made out. Even the circumstances and chain of the events, do not indicate that the death of Shashiprabha was homicidal. 26. The present case is covered under clause (7) of Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (Supra). 27. Accordingly, the present application U/s 482 is allowed. 28. The entire proceedings against the applicants is aforesaid case is hereby quashed.