Disposed

Surya Prakash Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024A482/22320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law sought quashing of proceedings arising from a dowry-harassment FIR citing Achin Gupta and Pepsi Foods. Quashing was refused for the husband as a prima facie case existed; proceedings for the mother-in-law and brother-in-law were stayed pending consideration with no coercive action allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed for applicant no.1; interim stay of coercive action against applicant nos.2 and 3 until next date of listing (13.09.2024).

Surya Prakash Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22320 of 2024 Applicant :- Surya Prakash Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Beenu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 25.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.01.2024, of Case No. 727 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Surya Prakash Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0004 of 2023, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section - 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District - Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division (F.T.C.) (C.A.W.), Sonbhadra.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. Applicant no.1 is husband, applicant no.2 is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is brother-in-law of informant. The marriage of informant with applicant no.1 has taken place on 17.04.2019 and out of that marriage, they have one child. In the first information report, the informant has alleged that on 24.02.2023 she was administered some medicine to terminate her pregnancy but during investigation said allegations were found false and section - 313 I.P.C. was dropped. It was submitted that applicant no.1 is working as Software engineer and earlier he has filed a case for divorce and

¶8

complainant has also filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. The allegations regarding dowry demand and harassment of informant are false and vague and that charge sheet has been submitted in a routine manner without proper investigation and that summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024), decided on 03.05.2024 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749 .

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations in the first information report that accused persons used to demand a swift dzire car in dowry and they used to harass the informant and thus, a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

Perusal of record shows that in the first information report, the informant has made allegations that she was married with applicant no.1 on 17.04.2019 and after marriage the accused persons used to demand a swift dzire car and due to non fulfillment of the said demand, they used to assault and harass her. She has also made allegations that she was administered some medicine in order to abort her pregnancy and consequently she has suffered abortion. She has further alleged that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by saying that until the demand of swift dzire car is fulfilled, they would not keep her at matrimonial

¶12

home. The said version is supported by informant in her statement under Section - 161 Cr.P.C. It is correct that during investigation, the version of informant regarding alleged abortion/termination of pregnancy was found false but there are clear allegations regarding dowry demand and harassment of informant. So far applicant no.1, who is husband of informant, is concerned, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against them. In case of Achin Gupta (supra), in paragraph nos.31 and 35, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-

¶13

"31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.

¶14

35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."

¶15

In the instant matter, in view of material on record, at this stage,

¶16

it cannot be said that impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide or the same have been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive. Thus, so far applicant no.1 is concerned, the aforesaid case law does not help the applicant no.1. In case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has inter-alia held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of fact. It was further observed that the order of magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. In the instant matter, the perusal of impugned order shows that the learned magistrate has observed that he has perused the charge sheet, case diary and other documents and took cognizance and summoned the accused persons.

¶17

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

¶18

(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 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.

¶19

So far applicant no.1 Surya Prakash Singh, who is husband of the informant, is concerned, in view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made. It would also be pertinent to mention that applicant has filed a case for divorce, which is pending. The informant has also filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., which is also pending. So far applicant no.1, is concerned, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings/summoning order is made out. Hence, the instant application in respect of applicant no.1 is hereby dismissed.

¶20

So far the applicant no.2 Chandrakali and applicant no.3 Brijesh are concerned, they are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of informant and a general allegation has been levelled that they used to demand swift dzire car in additional dowry. In case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is tendency to involve entire family members of the household in domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute. Considering all facts, in respect of applicant nos.2 and 3, matter requires consideration.

¶21

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶22

Counter affidavit may be filed by the opposite parties within four weeks.

¶23

List this case on 13.09.2024 .

¶24

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant nos.2 and 3, namely, Chandrakali and Brijesh in Case No. 727 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Surya Prakash Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0004 of 2023, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division/(F.T.C.) (C.A.W.), Sonbhadra.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 S Rawat

¶26

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

Surya Prakash Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Prakash Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Premlata vs Rajeeb Dixit Registrar Gram Panchayat Majoopur Suvkara District Aligarh

Gayatri Devi and 5 Others vs S Rajlingam District Magistrate and Another

Nagendra Kumar Siddhu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lekhraj Singh vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Latif vs State of Up and Another