Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19360 of 2017 Applicant :- Naveen Chandra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janardan Prasad Srivastav,Santosh Kumar
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of the applicants. Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate are present.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the Charge-sheet No. 68 of 2015 dated 06.09.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.
By the order dated 5.7.2017 of this Court, this matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad on the request of applicants subject to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- by the applicants within 15 days.
As per the report dated 27.2.2018 of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, which is on record, the parties concerned participated in the mediation and conciliation proceedings but mediation between them has failed.
In view of above, I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA on merit and perused the record.
The applicant no.1 is husband, applicant no.2 is father-in-law, applicant no.3 is mother-in-law and applicant no.4 is brother-in- law of the opposite party no.2. On 1.6.2015, opposite party no.2 lodged FIR against the applicants registered as Case Crime No. 68 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi alleging that her marriage was solemnized on 30.4.2006 and from the wedlock of applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, two children born but the applicant use to harass and torture the opposite party no.2 and pressurized her to bring dowry from her parents. It is also alleged that she is Assistant Teacher in primary school. The applicants use to demand money earned by her from her service. The Investigating Officer after investigation found the allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants correct and submitted the charge-sheet dated 6.9.2015.
On perusal of the material on record as well as allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2, the prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicants are made out.
The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has also submitted that the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act are available on record against the applicants. It is submitted that the disputed question of facts cannot be taken into consideration by this Court at this stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the law is well settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. The present case does not fall under the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, where inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the State and submitted that the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicants are made out.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and others 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 has recognized certain categories in which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, 1960 Cr.LJ 1239, the Apex Court also summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:-
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
The present case does not fall in any category recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (Supra) as well as in R.P. Kapur's case (supra). There is no good ground in this case to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, relief as claimed by the applicants is hereby refused.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 AK Pandey