Dismissed

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020A482/23602/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet arising from a matrimonial dispute based on alleged prior compromise and fabrication, the Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Court held it should not embark on factual appreciation in Section 482 proceedings and found no merit in the applicant's vague arguments and unauthorized possession of case materials, distin

What the court decided

AI extract

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23602 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Srivastav,Dhirendra Kumar Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard applicant, in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned AGA.

¶6

The applicants by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 9 of 2017 dated 17.01.2017, under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 506 and 3/4 D.P.Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 021/2016, under Section 323, 504, 313 and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mutthiganj, District- Allahabad, pending in the Court of ACJM, Room No.9, Allahabad.

¶7

Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, in person, argued for himself and other applicants, that O.P. No.4, wife, who got a decree for dissolution of marriage from applicant (Arvind Kumar Srivastava) on the basis of compromise entered, in between, had filed this case crime number against applicant and in-laws, with a concocted story, wherein no investigation was made by Investigating Officer, rather, under connivance with Circle Officer, Baihrana, Allahabad, as well as other officers of Police Station, concerned, this investigation was fabricated whereupon, charge-sheet was filed. No investigation was made by making any inquiry on spot, rather entire case dairy was written at the home of Smt. Manjula Srivastava, and chargesheet was submitted on the basis of this investigation.

¶8

As per judgement of Apex Court in a case of such type of matrimonial dispute, each and every in-laws of the prosecutrix are not to be summoned or victimized on general allegations, regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. In present case motherin-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law have been made accused on the basis of false and general allegations. The law propounded by Apex Court is that once in a criminal proceeding regarding maintenance and in matrimonial dispute, pending n family court, a compromise is being entered into between the parties, then, entire other criminal case, arising out of above matrimonial dispute, are also to be decided, on the basis of such compromise, and they be quashed. Hence, this a prayer for

¶9

quashing of impugned charge-sheet and cognizance taking order was made.

¶10

Learned counsel for O.P. No. 4 to 7 has vehemently opposed above arguments with the contention that alleged compromise, filed before the family court, was with no concern with present criminal case, which was regarding cruelty with regard to demand of dowry and other offences, wherein, no compromise was entered. The above compromise was filed before the family court, which is on record, and it was of one page only, having no mention of present case. In this case police made investigation and on the basis of statement recorded in case dairy, charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, this proceeding is to be dismissed.

¶11

Learned AGA also opposed the arguments of applicants.

¶12

This proceeding has been filed and is being argued by applicant, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, in person. He has written that he is an advocate and a member of High Court Bar Association of Allahabad, and his case is being conducted by him in person. In affidavit, he has written that he is representing his father, mother and other family members, who are applicants but the perusal of this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reveals that it is with full of citations, principles of law, but, with no specific mention of those citations and have been placed in a very vague way, having no concern with matter in question before this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶13

His argument is factual, relating to his dispute, with his wife, which is of no concern. He argued that he is having case dairy, wherein matters were written otherwise.

¶14

The case dairy is filed with the charge-sheet. On a query being made, as to how he is in possession of case dairy, whether he has obtained it by way of certified copy or have stolen from the police record, he could not make reply, except saying that he is having a photo-copy of the same wherein, the situation is otherwise, than the case dairy filed with the charge-sheet. This too reveals that his argument is on hypothesis over a document which has not been procured in a valid and legal way by him, the same is not before this Court and even if it is being filed, this court may not take cognizance of it because it is not concerned with present case and has not been filed by the I.O. before the court of Magistrate nor it has been duly procured by the applicant.

¶15

In the present case charge-sheet has been filed, the same is with

¶16

case-dairy. The statement recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., is there and on the basis of it, conclusion of submission of charge-sheet was drawn by Investigating Officer and it was submitted through Supervising Officer to court of Magistrate, concerned, where Magistrate has taken cognizance over it.

¶17

Now, this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon the factual matrix because the same is to be seen by the Magistrate and it will be appropriate stage where the applicant will get opportunity to defend himself by placing whatever material he is having.

¶18

Under above facts and circumstances, this application is of no substance. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , there is no ground for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Hence, the present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

However, applicants may move their application and facts before the Magistrate at appropriate stage for its consideration by the Magistrate.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 S.K.

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahid Husain Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sughar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghuveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siyaram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

I.P.S. Yadav Vs State of U.P. and another