Brijesh Kumar and Others vs The State of U.P and Others

Mahendra Dayal, J.—1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 9/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act relating to Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts in brief are that the opposite party No. 2 on 23.05.2012 lodged an FIR with the allegations that she was married to the applicant No. 1 Brijesh Kumar and her father had spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- in the marriage as per his financial status. However, the parents of the applicant No. 1 had been demanding a Hero Honda Motorcycle and a Colour Television upon which some dispute arose at the time of marriage but by the intervention of some relatives, the matter was resolved at that time. However, when the opposite party No. 2 reached her "Sasural" after "Bidai", the applicant and his parents started harassing her and also started demanding dowry. The applicant No. 1 also got her appointed as teacher in a local college, but the salary received by her was never given to her. On 01.01.2012, at about 11.30 PM, the applicants forcibly poured kerosene oil on her and tried to set her on fire. However, the opposite party No. 2 in order to save her life, rushed towards the courtyard of the house, where on her alarm, the neighbors reached there and saved her life. The opposite party No. 2 then called upon her brother and father, who took her to their house. The opposite party No. 2 went to police station Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur for lodging an F.I.R., but the report was not registered by the police. The opposite party No. 2 then gave an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur upon which the case could be registered.

The police conducted investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the applicants. During pendency of the case, the applicant No. 2 Smt. Urmila died.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that at the time of marriage, the opposite party No. 2 was a student of intermediate and after coming to her "Sasural", she insisted for graduation degree upon which the applicants got her admitted in a college from where she graduated but during the course of her studies, she became careless towards the family and neglected the applicant No. 1. The situation became worse when the opposite party No. 2 started neglecting her matrimonial obligations. She herself left the house of the applicants on 15.01.2011 without informing any one and started living with her parents. The allegations made in the FIR are absolutely false and fictitious but without there being any evidence, the police submitted charge-sheet. The opposite party No. 2 was never subjected to any cruelty and there is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. The learned Magistrate has also passed the impugned summoning order without going through the material available in the case diary. The present proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has on the other hand submitted that the applicants, prior to the lodging of the FIR by the opposite party No. 2, had filed a suit for divorce, which was allowed on 20.02.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the decree of divorce, the opposite party No. 2 filed first appeal before this Court. However, when the appeal was fixed, her counsel could not attend the Court and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the application for recall of the aforesaid order has been moved and the same is still pending. It has further been submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are absolutely true and are substantiated by the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go through the complicated questions of fact as it is for the trial court to go through these questions and decide as to whether any offence is made out against the applicants or not. It is an admitted fact that the police has conducted investigation and on the basis of material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted upon which the Court has also taken cognizance. Since the applicants did not appear before the court below, bailable warrant was issued against them and on issuance of bailable warrant, the applicants instead of approaching the court concerned for seeking bail, have approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings.

On reading of the FIR and the material available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants or that from the evidence collected during investigation, the charge-sheet could not have been filed. It is a settled law that the charge-sheet can be quashed only if it is shown that there has been abuse of process of law or that on the basis of allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected, no offence is made out. In this case, learned counsel for the applicants has failed to show as to how the process of law is being abused or the charge-sheet could not have been filed.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application and as such the application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the applicants to approach the court below for seeking bail and in case such application is moved by them within two weeks from the date of this judgment, their prayer shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. It will also be open for the applicants to move an application for discharge at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and if it is so moved, the learned court below shall consider the application for discharge taking into account the case diary and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.