Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 294 (ALL)

Om Narain Tripathi v. State Of U. P.

2024-01-29

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vikram D. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Prarabdha Pasndey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nirvikalp Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.428 of 2017, State Vs. Krishna Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0053 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Etawah pending in the court A.C.J.M. Vth, Etawah. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law and the applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law. The applicant no.2 has died during pendency of the present application before this Court and as such, he is not pressing the application so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned. The arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the applicant only in respect of applicant no.1. Accordingly, the present application in respect of applicant no.2 is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant no.1 is aged about 80 years. The first information report was lodged on 20.9.2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. In so far as applicant no.1 is concerned, the allegation applicant no.1 in the first information report is to the effect that the informant who is the wife has lodged the first information report that the marriage took place on 6.7.1998 with Krishna Kumar Tripathi. The allegation against applicant no.1 is that the applicant no.1 along with other co-accused were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they were subjecting the opposite party no.2-wife to cruelty. Further, there are allegation against applicant no.1 and other co-accused for assaulting the opposite party no.2. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicant no.1, who is father-in-law along with other co-accused. There is no injury report with regard to any injury suffered by opposite party no.2-wife. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2022 SC 820 . 7. There is no injury report with regard to any injury suffered by opposite party no.2-wife. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2022 SC 820 . 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that specific allegation has been made in paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application with the averment that there is no proof of any medical examination of the injuries sustained by the opposite party no.2-wife and the aforesaid allegations have been falsely made to enhance the gravity of the offence. The aforesaid averments have been responded by the State in its counter affidavit in paragraph 11. The non-existence of the medical examination report has not been disputed by the State. 8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the present application. However, he does not dispute the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others (supra). 9. Learned A.G.A. also could not dispute the fact that there is no medical report with regard to any injuries sustained by the opposite party no.2-wife. 10. It is to be seen in the present case that as per allegations in the first information report against the applicant no.1, it is alleged that the applicant no.1 along with other co-accused were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were therefore, sustaining cruelty on the opposite party no.2-wife. The marriage in the present case has taken place on 6.7.1998 with the co-accused Krishna Kumar Tripathi. The applicant no.1 is the father-in-law. However, allegation in the first information report is to the effect that the applicant no.1 along with other co-accused they have assaulted the victim. 11. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the opposite party no.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would demonstrate that general, vague and omnibus allegation has been made against all the accused persons. Although, there are specific and separate allegations against the husband. However, so far as the general allegations are concerned, the law has been settled by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others (supra). The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- "19. Although, there are specific and separate allegations against the husband. However, so far as the general allegations are concerned, the law has been settled by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others (supra). The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- "19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law." 12. It is to be seen that the general and vague allegation in respect of a matrimonial dispute against in-laws is indicative of the fact that the allegations are founded in order to enhance the gravity of the offence. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has quashed the criminal proceedings against the in-laws on the ground of allegations being vague and general in nature without satisfaction. 13. In the present case, the informant has failed to establish specific allegations with regard to cruelty and assault against in-laws-applicant no.1. There is no medical report with regard to any injury be suffered. 13. In the present case, the informant has failed to establish specific allegations with regard to cruelty and assault against in-laws-applicant no.1. There is no medical report with regard to any injury be suffered. The State has also not disputed the fact that there is no injury report in respect of the allegation. 14. Considering the nature of vague allegations made by the informant in the first information report as well as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others (supra), the criminal proceedings against the applicant no.1-Om Narain Tripathi in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 15. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.