Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 703 (ALL)

Pushpendra Kumar Gangwar v. State of U. P.

2024-03-05

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. Heard Sri. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State opposite party no.1, Sri. Mohit Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.03.2015 filed in case crime no.1333/2015, under Section 498A IPC, Police Station Bilaspur, District Pilibhit as well as entire proceeding of case no.950 of 2015, arising out of case crime no. 1333 of 2014, under Section 498A IPC, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage between applicant and opposite party no.2 was solemnized as per hindu rituals on 23.06.2004 out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with two sons. The marital relations between the couple continued to be in harmony and without any kind of dispute for approximately 10 years and during this period no complaint of any nature was made by opposite party no.2 against the applicant or his family members. 4. He further submits that the bone of contention between the couple is that the opposite party no.2 left the house of the applicant along with certain ancestral jewellery/valuable, and despite repeated requests, she was not returning to the matrimonial home to perform her marital obligations, the applicant filed a complaint on 17.09.2014 before the S.H.O., Police Station D.D.A. Flat's Bindapur, New Delhi with respect to an incident, which had taken place on 31.08.2014 wherein his in-laws had threatened him with dire consequences and abusive language. Subsequently, a notice dated 07.10.2014 was given on behalf of Jagdish Prasad Gangwar father of the applicant addressed to Basudev Gangwar father of opposite party no.2 whereby in specific terms it was mentioned that the opposite party no.2 should come and perform her marital obligations. As a counterblast and basically to evade from returning to the matrimonial home an FIR (subject matter of controversy in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant, his father, mother and other relatives. In the FIR it was alleged that the marriage was solemnized on 23.06.2004, but after demise of the real brother of opposite party no.2 in 2013, her husband and in-laws started making a demand for an amount of Rs. In the FIR it was alleged that the marriage was solemnized on 23.06.2004, but after demise of the real brother of opposite party no.2 in 2013, her husband and in-laws started making a demand for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs. The other aspersions, which has been made in the FIR is with respect to two incidents dated 07.10.2014 and 03.10.2014 wherein it has been alleged that the applicant tried to commit forcible carnal intercourse with the opposite party no.2. 5. He further submits that investigation commenced in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 06.11.2014 in which she reiterated the prosecution story narrated in the FIR. The statement of Basudev Gangwar father of opposite party no.2 was also recorded, who tried to corroborate the allegations made by his daughter. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate in which the opposite party no.2 yet again reiterated her earlier version. 6. He further submits that a subsequent statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 23.03.2015 wherein certain specific queries were put forth to her by the Investigating Officer. For ready reference the subsequent statement recorded on 23.03.2015 are quoted hereunder:- 7. He further submits that thereafter medical examination of the victim was conducted on two dates i.e. 16.12.2014 and 13.07.2014, which was after lapse of approximately 74 to 75 days from the date of the alleged incident of carnal intercourse. The medical examination reports of the victim did not corroborate the allegations made by her in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. inasmuch in the first medical examination was conducted on 16.12.2014 the doctor clearly opined that no external injury had been seen neither was there any kind of injury on the private parts of the opposite party no.2. The second medical examination report dated 13.07.2014 only mentions alleged history of physical assault by husband as told by the patients, some bruises were present over the chest. 8. He further submitted that no allegation of assault was ever made by the victim in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as regard any incident taken place with her on 13.07.2014 as such the said medical report appears to be procured peace of evidence only to justify criminal prosecution of the applicant. 9. 8. He further submitted that no allegation of assault was ever made by the victim in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as regard any incident taken place with her on 13.07.2014 as such the said medical report appears to be procured peace of evidence only to justify criminal prosecution of the applicant. 9. He further submitted that the applicant right from the very inception of marriage tried his level best to keep his better half happy but unfortunately due to some minor altercations, which primarily revolve around ornaments and valuables, the entire dispute between the couple has been blown out of proportions that too after more than a decade. The medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations made against the applicant. 10. He further submitted that, the allegation of dowry is all fake and fabricated. If the applicant was asking for the dowry he would not have bought two flats in the name of opposite party no.2. She has also not denied this fact. 11. He further submits that the present proceeding are liable to be interfered with by this Court as the same would qualify to be a gross abuse of legal process keeping the parameters mentioned in the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 on account of malice as the proceedings are tented with malafide and are vexatious in nature. 12. The prosecution story also to a large extent stands falsified on account of the fact that the name of all the other persons, who were arrayed as accused in the FIR were dropped and the allegations were found to be false. The allegation of carnal intercourse was also found to be false by the investigating officer during the course, which is by the said offence was not mentioned in the charge sheet. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that in the the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no.2 has corroborated the FIR version. He further submits that initially everything was perfectly alright but later the applicant had developed relation with some other woman and, thereafter, things went wrong. He further submits that there is clear cut allegation of cruelty against opposite party no.2 as he has gone into a relation with some other woman and there are evidence of some physical assault. 14. He further submits that initially everything was perfectly alright but later the applicant had developed relation with some other woman and, thereafter, things went wrong. He further submits that there is clear cut allegation of cruelty against opposite party no.2 as he has gone into a relation with some other woman and there are evidence of some physical assault. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance, I have perused the pleadings, affidavits and annexures thereto and the reply filed by concerned parties. 15. It is evidently clear that there was a matrimonial discord and after sometime opposite party no.2 apprehended that the applicant was having relation with some other woman, probably this is a reason, which triggered her to file a false and frivolous criminal cases against the applicant. The documents shows that the applicant had bought a property in the name of opposite party no.2, if there was a dowry demand or the applicant wanted money from her or her parents, he would have never bought a property in her name. It is not one property but there are two properties bought in her name. 16. The medical report of the victim did not corroborate with the allegations made by her in the FIR and in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the first medical examination report, the doctor opined that there was no external injury neither any kind of injury on the private part of the opposite party no.2. The second medical examination report dated 13.07.2014 mentions some bruises. No allegation of assault was ever made by the victim in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incident, which is said to have taken place on 13.07.2014. 17. The allegation of bore also seems to farthest as for so many years the couple was staying together happily and there was no demand of dowry, if the applicant was greedy they could have asked for the dowry long time back. 18. 17. The allegation of bore also seems to farthest as for so many years the couple was staying together happily and there was no demand of dowry, if the applicant was greedy they could have asked for the dowry long time back. 18. The allegation made by the opposite party no.2 with regard to her being subjected to cruelty for the sake of dowry stands completely falsified and castigated by two documents, which are in the form of sale deeds annexed to the instant application wherein two properties were purchased by the applicant in the name of his wife/opposite party no.2 in which she has been shown to be the vendee, the second sale deed reveals that the applicant along with his wife was the vendee/purchaser of the property in question and in such circumstances it appears to be quite farthest and impalpable that the applicant on one hand was investing his assets in the name of his wife and on the other hand was subjecting her to cruelty for the sake of dowry. 19. Even the questionnaire put up by the investigating officer reveals that the criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2 was with the sole intention of wreak vengeance against the applicant. In the statement before the I.O. she had stated that since the applicant was harassing her, that is why she has lodged a false case to ensure that the applicant goes to jail. She even went to the extent of stating that since the applicant had sent a notice on 07.10.2014 to return the jewellery, so in retaliation to that she had lodged the criminal complaint. 20. From the documents and evidence on record it is evident that the opposite party no.2 has filed a malicious and vexatious litigation only to wreak the personal vengeance. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 2017 SC (Criminal) 744 has held as follows:- "20. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 2017 SC (Criminal) 744 has held as follows:- "20. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 21. This Court time and again has examined scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnakata v. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 , held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following has been stated: "7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case this Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 CR.P.C. in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of this Court, this Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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." 23. A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. M. Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89 , also had occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 24. What is most shocking is that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of opposite party no.2on 23.03.201, which shows that the entire proceedings are frivolous and to wreak vengeance and still the Investigating Officer had filed a charge sheet. 25. Based on holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in concluding that the instant criminal proceeding initiated by opposite party no.2 is malicious, with the sole purpose of wreaking vengeance against the applicant. The allegations made in the FIR and the statements of opposite party no.2 prima facie goes to show that the criminal proceeding has been maliciously tainted with the malafide and instituted with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the applicant with the sole purpose to spite him due to the personal grudge/bore against him. Hence, the charge sheet dated 25.03.2015 as well as entire proceeding of case no.950 of 2015, arising out of case crime no. 1333 of 2014, under Section 498A IPC, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit are hereby quashed. 26. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.