C482/542/2012 of CHANDI LAL AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR

Reserved on: 01.05.2019

Delivered on: 14.05.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application No. 542 of 2012Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Chandi Lal and others

....... Petitioners

State of Uttarakhand & another

......Respondents

Mr. H.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Thind, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.04.2010, in case crime no. 401 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as the cognizance and summoning order dated 03.09.2010 in Criminal Case No. 2734 of 2011 pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar and proceedings arising out from it.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Facts briefly stated are that on 30.12.2009, report under Section 323, 498A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioners and her husband. According to it, respondent no.2 and one Dheeraj Singh, the co-accused married on 10.05.1998. In the marriage, gifts, according to the capacity of the father of respondent no.2 were given but the petitioners and the co-accused Deeraj Singh were not satisfied with it and they started torturing and harassing the respondent no.2 Out of the wedlock, respondent no.2 gave birth to two children. It is stated in the FIR that on 17.02.2019, the petitioners and the co-accused Dheeraj Singh, after beating respondent no.2, thrown her out of the matrimonial home and threatened that if she returns without bringing car and jewellery, she alongwith her children would be killed. After

investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and the co-accused Dheeraj Singh.

4. Respondent no.2 was represented at some stage. She was represented on the date of final arguments but her learned counsel informed that he has no instructions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that they were not living with the husband of respondent no.2; FIR has been filed after 11 years of marriage without any substantive allegations; there is no medical evidence; no specific role, as such, has been assigned to the petitioners and it is stated that in fact, petitioner no.4 was married long before the marriage of respondent no.2 and she is living in her matrimonial home; respondent no.3 was working abroad at the relevant time. It is argued that it is case, in which, interference under Section 482 of the Code is warranted because continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is noting but abuse of process of law.

7. In the instant case, counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police supporting the prosecution case.

8. The proceedings are under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction which has to be used in exceptional circumstances. The quashing of the petition before trial cannot be easily exercised.

9. The guidelines have been laid down in the cases of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 with regard to

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. This Court does not deem it proper to burden this judgment by reproducing the principles of law laid down in the aforementioned cases.

10. With regard to the matrimonial cases, in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7SCC 667, Hon’ble Court, while interpreting the law on the subject held as hereunder:-

“28.We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.

29.Admittedly, Appellant 1 is permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, Appellant 2 is permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of process of law.”

11. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Court while perusing the allegations observed as hereunder:-

“20.Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. Proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) In this case, Hon’ble Court further observed as hereunder:-

“25.However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of over act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in given case,

cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose -specific allegation against the accused more so against the coaccused specially in matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.” (emphasis supplied)

13. In the case of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2015) 11SCC 769 also the proceedings in case under Section 498-A I.P.C. were quashed. In the case of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule (supra), it was argued that the allegations in FIR are vague and omnibus. In the light of this argument, Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder:-

“17. We have carefully perused the allegations pointed out by the learned counsel, from the complaint of respondent 2 Hima Pritam Sadaphule, dated 4-2-2010. There can be no doubt whatsoever, that the allegations leveled against Appellants 2 to 5 do not justify any inference, which would lead to the conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in the nature of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied in accepting the prayer made in the instant appeal, with reference to Appellants 2 to 5, and to order quashing of the first information report dated 6-3-2010, and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom, including the charge-sheet dated 27-7-2010.”

14. Intending to rope in all the family members of the husband in the cases of matrimonial discord is not uncommon in this country. Allegations, which are vague in nature, not specific and not definite, necessarily required to be scrutinized before proceeding towards trial. After all, the trial is not such, which may conclude in day or two. Allowing someone to undergo, the rigours of the trial

should be based on some sound principles of law. In this process additional evidence or material filed by the petitioners cannot be considered. In the instant case, according to the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3, they did not stay with the respondent no.2. Document to that effect has been submitted. As stated, this is not trial, where evidence may be evaluated. The allegations leveled in the FIR are to be seen. Respondent no.2 had married some 11 years ago, having two children. Now, the allegation is demand of dowry. According to the FIR, the last incident is dated 17.02.2009, on that day, while demanding dowry by the petitioners and co-accused Dheeraj Singh, respondent no.2 was thrown out of her house. There are other allegations also but they are also general in nature. Simply sentence is stated that dowry was demanded by all. Nothing specific has been assigned to any of the petitioners.

15. The allegations leveled against the petitioners do not justify any inference which may lead to the conclusion that they can be held responsible for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that insofar as, the petitioners are concerned, the proceedings need to be quashed and petition allowed.

16. The petition under Section 482 of the Code is allowed. The charge sheet dated 16.04.2010, in case crime no. 401 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as the cognizance and summoning order dated 03.09.2010 in Criminal Case No. 2734 of 2011 pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Jitendra