Disposed

Ramesh Singh Tomar (Sasur) and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024A482/23108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for dowry harassment and criminal intimidation against applicants who are parents-in-law of the complainant. The Court held that while general allegations against remote relatives may be quashed, specific allegations here precluded quashing. The application was disposed of by refusing quashing but directing the trial court to expeditiously

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of; prayer for quashing refused. Directed trial court to decide discharge application within four weeks; no coercive action against applicants during pen

Ramesh Singh Tomar (Sasur) and Another Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128881

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23108 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Singh Tomar (Sasur) And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghav Ram

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Pundi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raghav Ram, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 20.08.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.05.2024, of Case No. 8696 of 2024 (State Vs. Deependra Singh Tomar and others), arising out of case crime no. 47 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate that applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of informant and no primafacie case is made out against the applicants. The marriage of informant with son of applicants has taken place on 26.05.2022. The allegation that at the time of marriage, on demand of applicants the father of the informant has transferred Rs. 4,98,000/- into account of applicant no.1, is wholly false and in fact the said amount was transferred into account of applicant no.1

¶9

for arrangement of marriage function and programme of celebrity Maithili Thakur. Informant herself left her matrimonial home along with her brother and father and later on first information report was lodged on false and baseless allegations. After marriage, the informant has resided at Nadiyal, Gujarat, where her husband was posted and in fact the husband of informant has faced mental harassment and agony at the hands of informant. Since 25.01.2023, informant is residing at her parental home at Jhansi. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant levelled against the applicants, are wholly false. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 2022 Live Law (SC) 141 and case of K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 2018) decided on 21.08.2018.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report, it has been mentioned that at the time of marriage, on the demand of accused persons, the father of the informant has transferred Rs. 4,98,000/- into account of applicant no.1. Similarly, an amount of Rs.9,99,000/- was paid by father of informant to 'Ajay & Sons' Jewellers at the demand of applicant no.1 but despite that the accused persons used to harass the informant on account of dowry and they used to demand Rs.10 lakhs as additional dowry and they have also threatened that in case said amount was not paid, they would marry their son with one Tina Bhadauria. In view of allegations made in the first information

¶11

report and material collected during investigation, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

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.

¶14

The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) after referring to case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 (10) SCC 741 and K.

¶15

Subba Rao (Supra), has held as under:-

¶16

"The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶17

In the instant matter, the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of informant. The marriage of informant with son of applicants has taken place on 26.05.2022 only about 7-8 months prior to the lodging of the first information report. It was alleged in the first information report that at the time of marriage at the demand of applicant no.1, the father of the informant has transferred Rs. 4,98,000/- into account of applicant no.1 and Rs.9,99,000/- was paid to 'Ajay & Sons' Jewellers but despite that after marriage of informant, she was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry. It was alleged that the accused persons used to demand Rs.10 lakhs as additional dowry and they have threatened that in case said amount was not paid, they would get marry their son with another lady. In case of K. Subba Rao (Supra), the appellants were not immediate family member of the husband and they were maternal uncles of the husband, whereas in the instant case, applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the husband of informant. In case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (Supra) , it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that proceedings against relatives and in-laws of the husband on the basis of general and omnibus allegations made in course of matrimonial dispute must be quashed but in the instant case, it may be seen that marriage of informant with son of applicants has taken place only about 7-8 months prior to the incident and it was shown that at the time of marriage on demand of applicant no.1 an amount of Rs. 4,98,000/- was transferred by the father of informant into account of applicant no.1 and similarly on his

¶18

demand Rs.9,99,000/- were paid to 'Ajay & Sons' Jewellers. In view of specific facts and circumstances of the instant case, the said case laws do not help 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. In view of allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out against the applicants. Hence, the prayer as sought by applicants is refused.

¶19

However, considering facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of four weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 SP/-

¶22

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

Ramesh Singh Tomar (Sasur) and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Singh Tomar (Sasur) 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases