Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31644 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandra Raj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Majahar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.1/State and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No.150 of 2018 dated 23.12.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2018, cognizance order dated 08.02.2019 and proceeding of Case No.339 of 2019 (State vs. Chandra Raj and another), under sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 376, 120B I.P.C. & Section Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi-Gyanpur, pending in the court of A.S.J./F.T.C.- 1, Bhadohi-Gyanpur.
Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of this case are that applicant no.1 Chandra Raj is husband, applicant no.2 Amar Nath is father-in- law of opposite party no.2 Smt.Priti. Marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized in the year 2013 with opposite party no.2, but their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party no.2 on 05.09.2018 lodged F.I.R. under Sections 323 504, 506, 498A, 376, 120-B I.P.C. & Section Dowry Prohibition Act against applicants, registered as Case Crime No.155 of 2018 at Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, making allegation inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2013 and Gauna ceremony was performed after three years of marriage, but she was issueless. She was tortured and harassed by the applicants on account of non-fulfilment of demand of their dowry. She was also assaulted by her husband and father-in- law. On 29.07.2018, she was forcibly raped by her father-in-law and thereafter anyhow she saved herself and came to her parental house. The Investigating officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 23.12.2010 against the applicants, on which Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 08.02.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant assailing the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order passed in this case, submitted that allegation of rape has been levelled against the opposite party no.2, but opposite party no.2 was not medically examined. The allegation has been levelled by the opposite party no.2 in order to give colour to the case. Whole prosecution story are false and fabricated. Applicants have been implicated due to malafide intention with ulterior motive. It is next submitted that infact oppostie party no.2 after marriage wanted to live with her husband in her maika as she was not able to adjust in her matrimonial whom and on this issue there was some quarrel between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, therefore, she has lodged impugned F.I.R. on false facts. Investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet without collecting credible evidence. Opposite party no.2 is a short tempered lady, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants. The impugned charge-sheet and criminal proceeding pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed by this Court.
After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that there is specific allegation of committing rape by the father-in-law (applicant no.2) on opposite party no.2. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. Factual submissions and defence as raised in the application can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.
This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at a pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 SKD