Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17384 of 2017 Applicant :- Pradeep And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the summoning order dated 14.2.2017 and the order of NBW dated 16.4.2017 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Meerut as well as entire proceeding in Case No. 7173 of 2016 (Old Case No. 340 of 2016), Smt. Mithilesh versus Pradeep and others, under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Eauchali, District Meerut pending in the court below.
It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings by this Court vide order dated 31.5.2017. The report of Mediation Centre dated 21.9.2017 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA. Perused the record.
It appears that the matter was investigated by the police and final report was submitted but protesting against the same a protest petition was filed. The court of the Magistrate decided to treat the matter as a complaint case and then proceeded to enquire into. The statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. recorded and then the court found it fit to summon the accused persons to face trial.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that a case under the Domestic Violence Act was also filed in which there was report sent by the DPRO which indicated that opposite party no.2 was having some kind of relationship with one Pintoo neighbour. It is because of this background that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. In this regard, the applicants have already moved an application that they may be falsely implicated in the case.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2)
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
Perusal of the evidence in the complaint case that has been produced on behalf of the complainant in the court indicates that there are allegations that the accused-applicants father-in-law, Omveer, husband, Pradeep, brother-in-law, Kuldeep, sister-in-law, Renu, mother-in-law Chamno and uncle Ramveer and others were demanding dowry and Rs.5 lakhs cash and because of the non-fulfilment of dowry they were beating the victim- wife off and on and filthy abuses were hurled. She was ousted from her matrimonial house and the son of opposite party no 2. was also kept by the applicants and the wife was deprived of her own son.
The submissions made by the applicants' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 CPP/-