Partly allowed

Abhishek Bhansali v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/1292/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed charges under Section 420 IPC due to lack of ingredients but declined to interfere with Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act charges, remitting those to the trial court. The court directed the petitioner to seek bail within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashed charge sheet regarding Section 420 IPC; petition allowed in part; petition to appear for bail application within 15 days.

Abhishek Bhansali Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1292 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Bhansali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Shahi,Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Ashish Pandey,Piyush Shrivastava,Raj Krishna,Ronak Karanpuria Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ambrish Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit tendered today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge sheet no.144 of 2016, under Sections 420, 498-A IPC filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Customs, Lucknow in Case Crime No.50 of 2016, under Sections 420, 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry prohibition Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow and the cognizance order dated 8.11.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.53082 of 2016, State Vs. Abhishek Bhansali.

¶8

The complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant took place on 15.1.2012 through a matrimonial website, in which the petitioner advertised himself to be an eligible bachelor for marriage. The petitioner represented himself to be a Software Engineer working as Consultant in a company at Ahmedabad. After the parties met, the marriage proposal was accepted, and the marriage took place at Udaipur. The complainant, wife of the petitioner, herself is a Software Engineer.

¶9

It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the

¶10

complainant gave jewellery value of Rs.6,00,000/-. After marriage, she reached to the residence of the petitioner at Udaipur and then she discovered that the representation made by the petitioner regarding working as Software Consultant was false and other representations were also found to be false. The petitioner was jobless. When opposite party no.2 started questioning the petitioner, he went to Washington and came back in December, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner again was without job. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his mother asked the opposite party no.2 to bring Rs.10,00,000/for constructing a room for the complainant at the matrimonial home for stay.

¶11

For dowry demand, opposite party no.2 was being harassed and subjected to cruelty. Mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 used to harass her for not bringing enough dowry. On 13.4.2014, out of the wedlock, a girl child, Medha, was born. The complainant perceived threat to her life and life of her minor child and, therefore, she left the matrimonial home on 6.5.2015 and came back to Lucknow to live with her parents. It is alleged that on 30.1.2016 at around 4 PM, when she went to the market to buy some household goods, some persons on behalf of her husband met her and threatened her and asked her to go to Udaipur, otherwise, she would face the serious consequences. On this complaint, the present FIR was lodged under Section 498-A, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the facts as narrated or as come out, the marriage has broken down. The allegations of cheating to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC are missing in the present case. However, the charge sheet has been filed for offence under Section 420 IPC. He further submits that if the provisions of 498-A IPC are considered, the

¶13

offence under Section 498-A IPC are also not made out. He also submits that the allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the opposite party no.2 to cruelty by the petitioner and his mother are completely false and concocted.

¶14

To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the conversations through e-mails and Whatsapp between the parties, and on the basis of which, he submits that opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial home on her own without there being any cause for her leaving the matrimonial home as she does not want to live with the petitioner at Udaipur and she would like to do job at some other place. She is presently gainfully employed at Noida in a software company, which is evident from her linkedin profile. She, therefore, set up the story against the petitioner and his mother to falsely implicate them. He, therefore, submits that the entire charge sheet is unsustainable, and it has been prepared and submitted without there being any cogent and credible evidence to support the charge against the petitioner.

¶15

On the other hand, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the petitioner has not been honest in his matrimony. He has cheated opposite party no.2 by making false representations. Allegation of dowry demand and subjecting the opposite party no.2 to cruelty, cannot be brushed aside on the basis of some e-mail and Whatsapp conversations. He further submits that defence of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and it is for the trial court to consider whether the offence, as alleged in the charge sheet, is made out or not. However, in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC, he does not dispute that the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are not attracted in the facts of the present case.

¶16

Same submissions have been made by Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA. He has submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court should not examine the evidence and defence of the petitioner and should not conduct a mini trial.

¶17

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶18

From the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present case and, therefore, the charge sheet so far offence under Section 420 IPC, is liable to be quashed. Order accordingly.

¶19

In respect of other offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, this Court is of the view that this Court should not conduct a mini trial to examine the defence evidence to come to the conclusion that the offence is made out or not. It is for the trial court to examine whether the offences under section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act are made out or not at the time of framing of charge or at the time of trial. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out in respect of the aforesaid offences.

¶20

Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within a period of fifteen days from today and apply for regular bail. In case the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and applies for regular bail within the aforesaid period, his bail application shall be considered and decided by the trial court in view of the order dated 07.10.2021 read with judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and

¶21

others : SLP(Crl) No.5191 of 2021.

¶22

Petition is accordingly allowed in part .

¶23

Order Date :- 18.8.2022/Rao/-

¶24

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.08.18 18:02:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Bhansali v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Bhansali v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dukhraja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shyam Bihari Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home