Dismissed

Pavan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024A482/21798/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for dowry harassment, assault, and criminal intimidation. Finding specific allegations against the applicants and absence of no-case evidence, the single judge held a mini-trial inappropriate and denied the prayer.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of entire proceedings including charge-sheet and cognizance order was dismissed.

Pavan Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123954

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21798 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pavan Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 01.12.2022 and cognizance order dated 22.05.2023, of Case No. 2836 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 746 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station - Ujhani, district Budaun, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no.1 is husband and applicant no.2 is mother-in-law of informant/opposite party no.2. It was submitted that applicant no.2 was residing separately from informant and her husband and she has no concern with the matrimonial life of informant. As per prosecution version, the informant was turned out from matrimonial home three years back but at that time no first information report was lodged. It was stated that a false incident has been shown of 05.09.2022 alleging that applicants have assaulted the informant but there is no medical report to show that informant has sustained any injury. Referring to facts of the matter,

¶9

it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in first information report informant has clearly stated that both the applicants were not satisfied with the dowry and they have harassed her on account of dowry and they used to demand Rs.5 lakhs and a car and thereafter she was turned out from matrimonial home. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 . It has been

¶13

held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

¶14

In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that there are specific allegations against both the applicants that they have harassed the informant on account of dowry and they used to demand Rs. 5 lakhs and a car from her. It was also alleged that on 05.09.2022 both the applicants have assaulted the informant and asked to compromise the matter. In view of allegations levelled in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima case is made out against the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Considering the material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings/charge sheet is made out. Hence, the present application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 S Rawat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pavan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar and Another 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

Ram Sharan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gautam Anand Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Bhatnagar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Bisht and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another

Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another