Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024A482/1049/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a marital compromise. The Court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed an offence and noted societal cultural norms, refusing to quash the case.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and impugned orders was refused; application dismissed.

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28546

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1049 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra ( In Charge Sheet Dinesh) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Ravindra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the applicant even in revised call of the list.

¶7

Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 as well as Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No.12501 of 2018, Case Crime No.251 of 1997, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi as well as charge sheet and impugned orders dated 13.08.2001 and 04.11.2023, filed as Annexure No.2 and 5 respectively, in terms of compromise between the opposite party no.3 and the applicant.

¶9

On 08.02.2024, learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the applicant and opposite party no. 3 have married together in the year 1997 and since then they are living together happily. They are having six children. Father of opposite party no. 3 lodged the impugned F.I.R. for the reason that he was not happy with the marriage of applicant and opposite party no. 3. On that date, the applicant Dinesh Chandra @ Dinesh and opposite party no. 3 were present in person. Both have stated the same story to the effect that they got married in the year 1997, since then they are living together as husband and wife happily and they have been blessed with six children from the aforesaid wedlock. Opposite party no. 3 had further stated that her father has lodged false and misconceived F.I.R. against her husband, the applicant, and she has no grievance whatsoever against her husband.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A for the State submits that we

¶11

live in a society, which does not permit us to live or make relationship in the form, which has been narrated in the present case. thus, this petition may be dismissed with heavy costs so that in future nobody tries to take advantage of this Court in such type of situations.

¶12

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶13

At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 .

¶14

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶15

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of summoning order/charge sheet or criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/charge sheet/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to

¶16

raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶17

Further, this Court is of the view that we are not living in a western country, where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens. We live in country, where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Saurabh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Goldi Sharma @ Deepak Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Deepak Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Niyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other