C482/1168/2013 of Rahmat Ali AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1168 of 2013(Under Section 482 CrPC)

Rahmat & Others

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Another ….…Respondents

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate, for the accused applicants. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate, for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Mohd. Azims, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2.

Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the cognizance order dated 20.9.2013, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 3315 of 2013, State v. Rahmat Ali & Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of Smt. Firoz Jahan no. was (complainant/respondent 2) solemnized with Rahmat Ali (applicant no. 1) on 15.6.2011 as per Muslim customs and ceremonies; on 22.11.2012, Smt. Firoz Jahan moved complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar against the present applicants with the allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, assault and torture; on the said complainant, learned Magistrate ordered to lodge the FIR; FIR was lodged on 2.12.2012; after investigation, police submitted the chargesheet against the accused applicants; and thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the impugned cognizance order asking the accused applicants to face

the trial for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved thereby, the present application.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant is counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicant no. 1 against the parents of the present complainant; all the family members have been implicated; and no specific role has been assigned to anyone.

Learned State Counsel submitted that the police collected credible evidence against the accused applicants and thereafter chargesheet has been filed. He drew the attention towards the medical papers, pertaining to the complainant, to corroborate the allegation of torture and harassment.

Learned Counsel for the complainant also refuted the contentions of learned Counsel for the accused applicants by submitting that the police has already filed Final Report after investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged by the accused applicant no. 1. He argued that there are credible evidence against the accused applicants and it is matter of trial.

Power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259,and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing

injustice by invoking inherent powers. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution.

Having considered the rival arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers available on record and considering the fact that after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused applicants, which inspires confidence and on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, I am of the view that prima facie case is made out against the accused applicants and there is no reason to believe that the prosecution is mala fide, untenable and solely intended to harass the accused applicants. Therefore, the impugned order, chargesheet and the ongoing trial against the applicants warrant no interference by this Court.

In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, considering that the accused applicants no. 6 and 7 are unmarried sisters of the main accused, it is directed that if an application is moved on their behalf under Section 205 CrPC, the same shall be favourably considered and their bail application shall also be decided as expeditiously as possible.

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present criminal miscellaneous application and the same shall not affect the trial in any manner.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.)