C482/574/2009 of SMT. MADHU SATIJA Vs PRADEEP KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL-Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 574 of 2009

Smt. Madhu Satija …….……. Applicantversus

Pradeep Kumar Satija …………. Respondent

Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the respondent.

Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 14.11.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 932 of 2008, captioned as Pradeep Kumar Satija vs Madhu Rani and others, pending in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

2) criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant (respondent herein) against four accused persons, including the applicant, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the complaint was dismissed as against accused no. 2, 3 and 4, but accused no. 1 (applicant herein) was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, vide order dated 14.11.2008, passed by learned I Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred by the accused-applicant.

3) It was matrimonial dispute, in which the wife was summoned at the instance of the husband, that too for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. It was alleged that the husband gave bank draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the wife for obtaining the decree of divorce on payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Rs. 3,00,000/- were given by the husband in advance, with an assurance from the wife that the balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be paid after obtaining the decree of divorce. It was held that on 02.06.2008, the accused persons called the complainant at Har-Ki-Pari at 07:00 P.M. When the complainant, alongwith his mother, reached Har-Ki-Pari, the accused persons hurled abuses at him saying ‘who are you to obtain divorce? If you will not keep Madhu with you, we will kill you.’ The accused also assaulted the persons allegedly complainant.

4) perusal of the complaint will make it manifestly clear that the other accused persons (2 to 4) and not the present applicant, hurled abuses at the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. It is to be noted here that the proceedings of the complaint were dropped against the accused persons no. 2, 3 and 4, and the accused no. 1 (applicant), who did not say anything,

was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Madhu herself could not ask the complainant that he will have to keep Madhu alongwith him, as is evident from the averment contained in the complaint. It is not the allegation against accused no. 1 that she told the complainant to take her alongwith him, or else, he will have to face dire consequences. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, therefore, committed mistake in summoning the accused no. 1 (applicant herein) to face the trail in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

5) When prima facie case is not made out against the applicant, therefore, it is fit case for intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, including Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, wherein certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C have been laid down. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such conclusion and where the basic ingredients of

criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere.

6) Although the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which this Court should intervene to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

7) The application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Summoning order dated 14.11.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 932 of 2008, captioned as Pradeep Kumar Satija vs Madhu Rani and others, pending in the court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed qua applicant.

Dt. August 29, 2013. Negi

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)