Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13506 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Kishun And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Pawan Kishor holding the brief of Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 15.05.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017 (Ram Brikch Vs. Ram Kishun & others), under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddharth Nagar.
The relevant facts for consideration of the present application are that the applicant no. 1 is father-in-law, applicant no. 2 is brother-in-law and applicant no. 3 is wife of opposite party no. 2.
The facts reveal that the marriage of the applicant no. 3 Chandrawati, daughter of the applicant nos. 1 & 2 was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 25th April, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Subsequently, the relations between the applicant no. 3 and the opposite party no. 2 became strained and ultimately reached at a point of no return. Consequently, the wife (applicant no. 3) left her marital home and came back to her parental home on 18th March, 2015 and started living with her parents. Subsequently, the applicant no. 1 filed a complaint case against opposite party no. 2 and his family members regarding demand of dowry and torture of his daughter which was registered as Complaint Case No. 630 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in which after recording statement of the complainant-applicant no. 1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate summoned the opposite party no. 2 and his family members under Section 498A & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 15.06.2016.
The applicant no. 3 also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 on 05.07.2016, which remained pending. Subsequently, the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on 19.01.2017 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, with the allegation that on 15.01.2017 at about 4:00 pm in the evening, the applicants came from Bolero car and indicated him to stop and when he stopped his vehicle, the applicants abused and beaten him with fists and blows and also threatened him to kill and snatched a golden chain from his neck and also took out Rs. 1200/- from his pocket.
Subsequently, the statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2017 and the statements of Prithvi Pal and Rangi Lal were also recorded under Section 202 as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 on 07.02.2017 & 22.02.2017 respectively. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 15.05.2017 summoned the applicants to face trial only under Section 392 IPC. The said summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the said complaint are impugned in the present application.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court as the complaint has been made as a counter blast by opposite party no. 2 in order to harass the applicants, alleging a totally false story against them who are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the criminal proceedings which has been engineered to wreak vengeance, are liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. & others Vs. Harihar Singh & another reported in 2008 (16) Supreme Court Cases 763.
On the other hand, neither anybody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 who is the contesting party in spite of summon being served upon him personally as per the office report, nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.
I have considered the submission so raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
The facts stated in the present application are unrebutted in the absence of any counter affidavit on behalf of O.P. No.2.
The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its powers under it relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, have been explained in some detail in the decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 (1) SCC 335. The categories so indicated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), are as under:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is 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."
From the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), it is apparent that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the powers requires great caution in its exercise.
Paragraph no. 9 of the decision in M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. & others (supra) relied by learned counsel for the applicants is quoted hereunder:-
“The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings.”
The case in hand appears to be squarely covered within the parameters as indicated in category no. (7) provided in the decision of Bhajan Lal case (supra). The factual scenario as noticed above clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants and therefore, the continuance of the said proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, hence the same are liable to be quashed.
In view of the above, the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017 (Ram Brikch Vs. Ram Kishun & others), under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, is hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Shivangi