The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings arising from an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that the allegations raised for quashing involved disputed questions of fact appropriate for trial, and no abuse of process was made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43575 of 2022
Applicant :- Shubham Patel @ Anees And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
The instant application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the proceedings of Case No. 43956 of 2022, 'State v. Shubham Patel and others' arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court/ Excise Court for Crime against Women, Fatehpur as well as charge-sheet dated 30.10.2022 and cognizance & summoning order dated 09.11.2022.
Brief facts of the case are; a first information report has been lodged against the applicants on 09.06.2022 at 19:28 Hrs. bearing Case Crime No. 6 of 2022 against the applicants with the allegation that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 – Shubham Patel alias Anees on 12.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Dowry was given as per capacity of father of the informant, however, in-laws, namely, father-in-law Akhilesh alias Chheda, husband – Shubham, Dewar – Ashish, and cousin of applicant no. 1 Roshni Devi, were not happy with the dowry as given by father of the opposite party no. 2. Said persons used to demand
motorcycle and a buffalo as additional dowry and on nonfulfillment of the demand, she has been harassed. It has also been alleged that father-in-law's behaviour was obnoxious as he used to stare on her with bad intention and performed objectionable acts. He also threatened her by stating that in case she objects to whatever is done by him, she should be ready to face dire consequences and when opposite party no. 2 expressed that his father is not in a position to fulfill the additional dowry demand, she was beaten by the aforesaid persons with legs and fists. After taking away all her belongings including jewellery and gold, she was pushed out of the home. On dialing 112 by the opposite party no. 2, police personnel rushed to the spot, whereafter she was sent to Village Khanpur on the same day. Happening of aforesaid activities was shared by the opposite party no. 2 with her father, brother and other relatives who went to the applicants' house to mediate the matter, however, nothing could be materialized. Till date the applicants have not even tried to gather any information about the position of opposite party no. 2. They have also threatened the opposite party no. 2 over a telephone call, to be ready to face dire consequences.
It is further alleged that father-in-law of opposite party no. 2 has stated that if the opposite party no. 2 returns back without additional dowry demand as raised by the applicants, they will kill her. It has also been alleged that father-in-law of opposite party no. 2 on several occasions tried to performed obnoxious acts with opposite party no. 2.
After the investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.10.2022 and the applicants have been summoned on 09.11.2022, hence the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is nothing but malicious prosecution against the applicants. He
further submits that earlier an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by opposite party no. 2 on 24.09.2021, wherein nothing regarding attempt of any wrong act by fatherin-law, as alleged in first information report, has been stated, and the opposite party no. 2 is not pressing aforesaid complaint, therefore, the conduct of opposite party shows that the present case has been lodged to falsely implicate the applicants to exert pressure upon them, for the reasons best known to opposite party no. 2. He further submits that another application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. has been moved by the opposite party no. 2 on 13.03.2022, wherein, apart from the allegations as made in first information report, a number of allegations regarding commission of rape by father-in-law, have been mentioned which also proves that present first information report has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations in order to harass the applicants. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 has married another person. In order to show that the present case has been lodged with malafide intent, learned counsel for the applicants has placed a notarized affidavit showing that opposite party no. 2 has married.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that from a perusal of first information report prima facie case is made out. All contentions as raised by learned counsel for the applicants regarding filing of numerous cases cannot be seen here as there are no orders of competent court entertaining those cases. It can also be taken in this manner that when complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 was not entertained, she has proceeded to lodge first information report. Plausible explanation regarding the same has been given in the FIR itself and the Investigating Officer has collected cogent and credible evidence to make out offence against the applicants.
It is next submitted that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. As regards the notary affidavit in respect of marriage of opposite party no. 2 with some other person, said fact cannot be looked into at this stage.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682; Mohd.
Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454; Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45; Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 , and M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 .
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as this case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
In view of above, the present application is rejected.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023 DS
Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage on grounds of alleged malice and disputed facts.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants based on the FIR and charge-sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Versus State of PunjabReferred¶16
R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.Referred¶16
State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.Referred¶16
State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.Referred¶16
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122 · Who else cites this
M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar SrivastavaReferred¶16
M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & OthersReferred¶17
Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶17
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45
Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & OthersReferred¶17
Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143
M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of MaharashtraReferred¶17
M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shubham Patel @ Anees And 3 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
