Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1261 (ALL)

Kapil Tomar v. State of U. P.

2024-05-10

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 7114 of 2024 (State Vs. Kapil Tomar), under Sections 304-B, 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh arising out of Case Crime No. 0079 of 2023, under Sections 306, 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh including charge sheet dated 12.8.2023 bearing no. 175 of 2023 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 29.1.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband and charge sheet has been filed against applicant under Sections 304-B, 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961. The marriage of the applicant took place with the deceased on 4.12.2022. As per prosecution case, at the time of marriage dowry was given to the applicant and family members and, thereafter, harassment was extended to the deceased for further dowry and in this respect, on 5.1.2023 when the informant along with family members went to the house of applicant, demand of dowry was reiterated and car was being demanded. Subsequently, as per allegation, the wife was thrown out of the house and thereafter, the demand was also made and as a result of same on 6.4.2023 deceased wife has committed suicide. 3-A. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law as the conduct of wife was not proper as a result of same, the father of informant on 30.12.2022 has written a letter admitting mistake of the deceased and assuring the applicant of non repetition of the same in future. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that conduct of deceased wife being not fair an agreement was entered into between husband and wife, which is at page 115 of the paper book. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that conduct of deceased wife being not fair an agreement was entered into between husband and wife, which is at page 115 of the paper book. 3-B. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that independent witness have also given statement that there was dispute between husband and wife on account of the fact that wife was interested in some another person and as a result of same, there was friction in the marriage and marriage was not consummated. It is submitted that although statement of independent witnesses, who were resident of same locality, have been recorded in case diary, however, while submitting charge sheet the aforesaid statement has not been considered. It is submitted that Investigating Officer is required to conduct fair investigation independently and cannot be partisan to the investigation. In this respect, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Babubhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others; 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 782. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per Regulation 107 of Police Regulation, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation fairly and to consider the defence raised by the applicant at the time of investigation. In this respect, it is submitted that complaint was also made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, which is at page 147 of the paper book , which is part of case diary according to learned counsel for the applicant. 3-C. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet has been submitted by considering the statement of informant. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present criminal proceedings are not tenable under law. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the wife has committed suicide at her parental home and she has not committed suicide at the place of applicant and as such, criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that wife has not committed suicide on account of harassment for demand of dowry, as has been claimed by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that wife has not committed suicide on account of harassment for demand of dowry, as has been claimed by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application and submits that the wife has died within seven years of marriage and the death is unnatural. It is submitted that the defence raised by applicant cannot be considered at this stage. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that there was no agreement entered into between the parties and the letter which is at page 112 of the paper book is not admitted. It is submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that on account of harassment by applicant for demand of dowry, the daughter of informant has committed suicide and applicant is liable to be proceeded in accordance with law. It is also submitted that once the statement of witnesses of informant has been recorded, who have supported the prosecution case, then there was no other option for the Investigation Officer except to proceed to submit charge sheet and court concerned had not committed any error in taking cognizance in pursuance of charge sheet submitted by Investigating Officer. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case, applicant, who is husband was married to the deceased on 4.12.2022. The wife has committed suicide on 6.4.2023. The applicant claimed that wife was having an affair with another person and as such, she was not interested in marriage and marriage was not consummated. In this respect, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before this Court the letter dated 30.12.2022, which is at page 112 of the paper book to submit that informant had admitted the mistake of deceased. It is to be seen that learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the agreement entered into between husband and wife, which is at page 115 of the paper book. The agreement is dated 30.12.2022. On the strength of aforesaid, it has been stated before this Court that once parties have agreed upon mistake of deceased then subsequently lodging of criminal proceeding is not tenable. 6. It is to be seen that documents placed before this Court being letter dated 30.12.2022 and agreement dated 30.12.2022, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not admitted the aforesaid documents. 6. It is to be seen that documents placed before this Court being letter dated 30.12.2022 and agreement dated 30.12.2022, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not admitted the aforesaid documents. The aforesaid documents are, therefore, at present a disputed documents, which are required to be proved by the applicant at the stage of trial. At this stage, the aforesaid documents are mere defence raised by the applicant, which is to be considered at proper stage by the court concerned. The jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to hold mini trial at this stage. 7. So far as argument of learned counsel for the applicant that independent witnesses whose statements were recorded have not been considered while submitting charge sheet is concerned, the same is to be seen by court concerned. A perusal of statement of informant would demonstrate that there is allegation with regard to demand of dowry against applicant and even specific statement has been recorded in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The independent witnesses relied upon by the applicant are the resident of the same area, who have stated that there was a dispute between husband and wife, however, with regard to transaction of demand of dowry, it is not the case that they were the witnesses to any such transaction. Once the informant has given specific statement that there was demand of dowry, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to have not relied upon the statement of informant. 8. The third submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the wife has committed suicide in her parental home. No site plan has been filed along with application. 9. The effect whether the wife has died on account of behaviour of applicant or solely on her own will, it is to be seen at the time of evidence. At this stage such issue cannot be considered. It can be a case where wife goes back to her parental home being harassed, she commits suicide at her parental home although the possibility may be remote, however, in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. such issue cannot be looked into. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.