1. Heard learned counsel for the applicantS, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 09.04.2013 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1835 of 2012 (Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and otehrs), arising out of case crime no. 63 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act and order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the C.J.M. Mainpuri.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is husband of respondent no.2, whereas applicant no.2 is sister-in-law of respondent no.2 and applicant no.3 is a friend of applicant no.1 and that no prima facie case is made out against them. It was submitted that first information report of above stated case was lodged making false and baseless allegations and in fact no marriage was solemnized between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 nor they have lived as husband and wife. The marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized on 04.12.2006 with one Neha Agnihotri and the said marriage was got registered. It was stated that respondent no.2 came in relationship with applicant no.1 but applicant no.1, being a married person, had refused to marry with her and after that the respondent no.2 has developed a concocted and false story regarding marriage with applicant no.1 and filed the first information report of impugned case. Earlier, the family members of respondent no.2 have also attacked applicant no.1 and in that incident, he has sustained injuries and in that matter after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. In the instant matter, the police did not conduct investigation properly and charge-sheet was submitted in routine manner. An application was also filed before the Court below under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation but it was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.02.2015. Learned counsel submitted that in view of all these facts, no prima facie case is made out.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed and argued that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 29.10.2009 as per Hindu rites but she was harassed by the applicant no.1 and other family members on account of dowry and that on 21.01.2011 she was turned out of her matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that after investigation police have submitted charge-sheet against the applicants and that in view of allegations made in first information report and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. .
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., no prayer has been made to quash the summoning order passed on the basis of impugned charge-sheet. In the absence of any challenge to summoning order passed by the Court below, in view of judgment of this Court, in the Case of Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14785 of 2015 decided on 27.11.2018 reported in Laws (All) 2018 (11) 70, in the absence of any challenge to the summoning order the proceedings cannot be challenged by the accused.
7. Perusal of record shows that there are allegations that marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 29.10.2009 but after that she was harassed by the applicant no.1 and his family members on account of dowry.
8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
9. In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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.
10. After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
11. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is refused.
12. However, so far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the case of these applicants is that applicant no.2 is sister-in-law of the respondent no.2 and that applicant no.3 is friend of applicant no.1, though respondent no.2 has alleged that he is her brother-in-law. In respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3 it is provided that in case they move an appropriate application for discharge, in accordance with law within a period of one month from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of one month and in case any such application is moved by the applicant nos. 2 and 3 before the Court below till disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3, provided the applicants do not delay the proceedings and co-operate in early disposal of the application.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 12.01.2021 A.Tripathi