Dismissed¶14

Jamunadas and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024A482/23101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of charge-sheet refused; dowry/harassment case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 198 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines Budaun, District Budaun; State v. Harsh Vardhan, Case No. 31164 of 2021, case crime no. 106 of 2021; Bhajan Lal guidelines (AIR 1992 SC 605) and allied SCC precedents relied on; questions of fact and mini trial impermissible at 482 stage; prima facie case disclosed; liberty to seek discharge to be decided expeditiously; Jamunadas v. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court, Order dated 23.7.2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief of quashing; the prayer for quashing of proceedings/charge-sheet was refused. The applicants were given liberty to raise pleas before the trial Court at the hearing on charge or to seek discharge, such application to be decided expeditiously. ¶14

Jamunadas and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings and the charge-sheet dated 29.06.2021 in Case No. 31164 of 2021 (State Vs. Harsh Vardhan and others), arising out of case crime no. 106 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 198 IPC, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases; it may be exercised where the allegations in the FIR/complaint and material on record, even taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

If a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, the court should not quash the charge-sheet/complaint.

¶11

Key takeaways

At the stage of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.ratio¶11
In view of the nature of the accusations (specific allegations of dowry demand, harassment and an attempt to kill on 14.01.2020) and the material on record, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the applicants' submissions call for determination on questions of fact, which is not permissible in such proceedings; the prayer for quashing of the proceedings/charge-sheet is refused.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.), Order dated 23.7.2024: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Application U/S 482 No. 23101 of 2024, Jamunadas and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings and charge-sheet dated 29.06.2021 in Case No. 31164 of 2021 (State v. Harsh Vardhan and others), arising out of case crime no. 106 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 198 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines Budaun, District Budaun, DISMISSED. The informant had specifically alleged that her husband and parents-in-law demanded a four-wheeler car as additional dowry, harassed and beat her, and on 14.01.2020 tried to kill her, after which she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Applying the Bhajan Lal guidelines and allied precedents, the Court held that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly; that where a prima facie case disclosing the ingredients of the offence is made out, the charge-sheet should not be quashed; and that questions of fact cannot be examined and no mini trial can be held at the Section 482 stage. Quashing was refused, with liberty to the applicants to raise pleas at the charge hearing or to seek discharge, any such application to be decided expeditiously.

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23101 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Jamunadas And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings and charge-sheet dated 29.06.2021, of Case No. 31164 of 2021 (State Vs. Harsh Vardhan and others), arising out of case crime no. 106 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 198 IPC, P.S.- Civil Lines Budaun, DistrictBudaun, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C./C.A.W., Budaun.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The applicant no.3 is husband of informant and applicant nos.1 & 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of informant. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant levelled against the applicants are wholly false. It was submitted that applicant nos. 1 & 2 were residing separately from informant and her husband. Only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of the informant have been levelled against all the accused persons. It was stated that informant/opposite party no.2 herself has left the matrimonial home at her own and she has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicants

¶8

are wholly false and no case is made out against the applicants.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations levelled in the First information Report against the applicants and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against them.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

In the instant matter, perusal of records shows that marriage of informant with applicant no.3 Harshvardhan has taken place on 10.07.2005. Applicant Nos.1 & 2 are father-in-law and mother-inlaw of informant. Informant has made clear allegations that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand a four wheeler car as an additional dowry and on that account, they used to harass her. She has further alleged that in the year 2010, she was turned out from her matrimonial home but later on the father of informant has paid Rs.2 lakh and informant started residing at her matrimonial home but again she was harassed by the accused persons. She has further stated that her husband and father-in-law used to beat and taunt her by drinking liquor and on 14.01.2020, they have tried to kill her and later on she was turned out from her matrimonial home. In view of nature of accusations and material on record, it is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which is not permissible in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the material on record, the prayer for quashing of proceedings/charge-sheet is refused.

¶13

However, the applicants would be at liberty to raise their pleas before the trial Court at the time of hearing on charge or they may move an application seeking discharge. In case, the applicants move any application for discharge, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶14

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with aforesaid observations.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 SP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jamunadas and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamunadas and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases