Court No. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2671 of 2006 Applicant :- Mukesh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Case called out in the revised call. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants to address the court. However, the learned A.G.A. is present for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet submitted in Case No. 421 of 2006 (State Vs. Mukesh and others) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Parikshatgarh, district Meerut.
On 9.3.2006 the following order was passed in the aforesaid case, which is reproduced below;
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the further proceeding of case Crime No. 421 of 2006, under Sections 498-A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to police station Parikshit Garh, district Meerut pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (SD), III Meerut be quashed.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, the case of applicants Mukesh, Azad and Smt. Bhuri the husband, the father-in-law and mother-in-law are distinguishable from the other applicants No. 4 to 7 who are Jet, Nanad, Dewar and Dewarani of opposite party no.2. Hence this application in respect of applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 who are husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law is dismissed.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within the aforesaid period. Opposite party no.2 may if she so desires file a counter affidavit within the aforesaid period also.
List this case after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the last week of July' 2006 the further proceeding of case Crime No.
421 of 2006, under Sections 498-A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to police station Parikshit Grh district Meerut pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (SD), III Meerut shall remain stayed only against applicants no. 4 to 7, namely, Madan, Smt. Asha, Anil and Smt. Krishna.
The trial in respect of applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 is not stayed which will be taken to its logical consequence.
However, if the applicants no. 1 to 3 who husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 appear or surrender before the trial court, on or before 27.3.2006 and makes an application for bail, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible without unnecessary delay."
From the perusal of the first information report lodged by the respondent no. 2 who is wife of the applicant no. 1, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants in respect of the alleged ill treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry and that she was ousted from her matrimonial house. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer who had collected the clinching material against all the accused/applicants.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence, which does not suffer from any procedural illegality. The allegation made against the applicants cannot be sifted at this stage.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding against the applicant nos. 4 to 7 is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
The applicants no. 4 to 7 are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of 30 days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.
However, the applicant nos. 5 and 7, namely, Smt. Asha and Smt. Krishna shall be released on interim bail till their regular bail application is decided.
Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the court below for information and necessary action.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Shahnawaz