Partly allowed

Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020A482/2997/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court quashed proceedings against the applicant's father-in-law and mother-in-law due to vague dowry allegations lacking specific material, but refused the prayer for applicant 1 (husband) with a one-month compromise.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against applicant no.2 and no.3 (parents-in-law) quashed; prayer against applicant no.1 (husband) refused with a conditional stay.

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2997 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

This Court vide order dated 29.01.2019 had referred the dispute to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has informed the Court that the mediation in this case has failed.

¶7

In view of the above, now we proceed to examine the matter on merits.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 08.02.2018 and non-bailable warrant dated 24.12.2018 passed by the VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad passed by the VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in complaint Case No.3077 of 2017 CNR No.UPGZ0455634-2017 (Arhchana vs. Pappu and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad as well as stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the Court of VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶10

The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No.2 was solemnised with the applicant on 20.02.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The parents of the opposite party No.2 had given dowry as per financial capacity. Out of their wedlock a girl child was born. The opposite party No.2 was mentally and physically tortured being birth a girl child and for additional demand of dowry. After fulfilment of demand of dowry, applicants have sent the opposite party No.2 her parental house, then she filed a complaint case No.3077 of 2017 against the applicant No.1 and his entire family members, in which statement of opposite party No.2 has been recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 containing absolutely false and frivolous allegations with the ulterior intention of harassing the applicants and although no offence against the applicants is disclosed from the material on record and the charge against the applicants is groundless, yet the court below has summoned the applicants in a mechanical manner.

¶12

He lastly submitted that since the prosecution of the applicants is manifestly

¶13

attended with malafides, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that from perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶15

It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and the allegation levelled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.

¶16

Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra).Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-

¶17

"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-

¶18

"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

¶19

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.

¶20

The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."

¶21

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 as well as learned A.G.A. states that offence under the relevant Sections are made out as per the averments made in

¶22

the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of parties. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 in F.I.R. If the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants is compared with the fact and evidence available on record, certainly what actual words were used by each and every accused to attract the offence levelled in the present matter have not been made clear in the F.I.R. General allegations have been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 an 3 regarding the demand of dowry, causing cruelty and beating. If the law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) case is compared with the facts and evidence available on record and also with the submission raised by learned counsel for the parties, Court is of the opinion that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 on the strength of facts mentioned in the F.I.R. will be abuse of process of law. Since no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 and 3, they cannot derive benefit directly with the demand said to have been made in the matter from opposite party no.1, thus, application having substance is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are quashed.

¶23

However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no.1 is refused. It is directed that if applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within one month from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, i.e, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 decided on 8.7.2016.

¶24

For a period of one month from today or till the applicant no.1 surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶25

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Pr/-

Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbunnisha Vs State of Up and Anr.

Sameer and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Anuradha Tiwari Vs Additional Chief Metropolitan MAGISTRATE-1 and 9 Others

Abhay Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sethpal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mukesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another