Deepak And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Sunil B. Shukre, J

Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent.

By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No.272/2019, registered on 28.6.2019 at Police Station Ambazari,

Nagpur against all the applicants. The F.I.R. has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the learned counsel for the applicants, no prima facie case is made out against any of the applicants and, therefore, this is a fit case

for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the F.I.R. She submits that the

allegations are manifestly false and this could be seen from the copies of the correspondence which the applicants have filed on record today. This

correspondence had taken place between the complainant i.e. non-applicant No.2 and the applicant No.1. She further submits that there are certain

glaring facts which are established on record, which would also show falsity of these allegations.

Learned A.P.P., stoutly opposing the prayer of the applicants, submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. filed against the applicants would be enough

to come to the conclusion as to how a prima facie case, rather a strong prima facie case for the offences registered against the applicants is made out

here. He invites our attention to the specific allegations made against each of the applicants to show as to how the respondent No.2 was subjected to

torture of extreme kind. Therefore, according to him, this is not a fit case for making any interference.

Shri M.S. Samel, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 submits a similar argument. He invites our attention to what he states to be an instance

of cruelty of the extreme kind meted out by applicant No.1 to the non-applicant No.2, narrated in details in the F.I.R. He submits that no husband

notwithstanding his serious differences with his wife, would exhibit such a behaviour as has been shown by the applicant No.1. He submits that when

applicant No.2 reached America (USA) on 19.6.2019 and went to the house of the applicant No.1 at about 6.45 p.m. and knocked at the door,

applicant No.1 did not open the door and when non-applicant No.2 made a phone call to the applicant No.1, the first question that the applicant No.1

asked of non-applicant No.2 was whether or not she had brought amount of 30,000 US Dollar from India and when applicant No.1 got a negative

reply, the applicant No.1 did not open the door and called upon non-applicant No.2 to go back. He submits that this incident demonstrates a most

heinous crime and it appears as an aggravated form of cruelty largely due to remaining applicants joining hands with the applicant No.1 and, therefore,

this is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR.

On going through the allegations made against all the applicants and also the documents filed on record, we are of the view that there is no

substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants and there is great merit in the submissions made across the bar on behalf of the non-

applicants.

Applying the parameters of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in SCC 1992 Supplement (1) 33,5 we find that the

allegations, taken at their face value and accepting them in their entirety, an offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code is, prima-facie, strongly made out against all the applicants. The allegations are specific and they place on record the particular

instances and certain acts committed by all the applicants which all amount, prima-facie, to cruelty in the eye of law. They further show that these

acts have been committed at various times on different dates not only by applicant No.1 but also the remaining applicants.

Just to substantiate our conclusion, a reference to some of the instances narrated in the F.I.R. could be made. Marriage of non-applicant No.2 with

applicant No.1 was solemnized on 24.12.2018. It is seen that on 27.12.2018, immediately after Shri Satyanarayan puja was over, the applicant Nos.2

and 3 had raised certain demands with non-applicant No.2 which were in the nature of dowry. It is further seen that the non-applicant No.2 went to

USA along with applicant No.1 on 2nd January, 2019 and reached there on 3rd January, 2019. The non-applicant No.2 has alleged that after reaching

USA. She started receiving phone calls from applicant No.3 and the applicant No.3 would say something atrocious which would cause mental torture

to her. Those words are specifically mentioned in the FIR. The non-applicant No.2 has also alleged that as she was having only tourist VISA and for

continuation of her stay in USA she was required to obtain H-4 VISA, an amount of 30,000 US Dollars was required to be spent. She alleges that

applicant No.1 used to demand this amount from her saying that she should bring this amount from her father. She has alleged that applicant Nos.2

and 3 used to tell her that she should bring more jewellery from her maternal house. More or less similar allegations are also made against applicant

No.4. She has further alleged that on 20th May, 2019, she was forcibly sent back to India, which fact has been denied by learned counsel for the

applicant. She submits that even after reaching Nagpur and staying some time in the house of her inlaws, non-applicant No.2 further says, her ordeal

did not come to an end. She alleges that she was continued to be subjected to cruelty and some specific acts in this regard have been mentioned by

the non-applicant No.2 in the F.I.R. All these allegations would prima facie show that necessary ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code are fulfilled in the present case and also those required for attracting the offence of dowry punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

As if the above referred instances are not enough, we find that there have been even more happenings, which lend, at least prima facie, an

aggravated form to the offence of cruelty. This could be seen from what happened in the evening of 19.6.2019 when non-applicant No.2 had arrived

in USA from India by flight and reached the house of applicant No.1 in USA. From the allegations made in the FIR, it is seen that the non-applicant

No.2 was not allowed entry inside the house by the applicant No.1 on the ground that she had not brought with her 30,000 US Dollar, an amount she

was asked to mobilize from her father by applicant No.1. This was inspite of the fact that the non-applicant No.2 was his wife and had travelled all the

way from India to a far away foreign land like USA, all alone, and this act, it could be anybody’s guess, must have prima-facie, make her feel

distressed and terrorised. We do not think, prima facie, that any husband left with some mercy in him would, in such a situation, give priority to his

demand of money and leave his wife in the lurch, extremely bruised and traumatized. No husband having in him any element of humanity, come what

may his differences with the wife, would display such a behaviour, prima facie, cruel and callous, towards his wife. The allegations, however, prima

facie do show that and suggest an aggravated form of mental and physical harassment of grave nature, to non-applicant No.2. We must say it here

that the story does not end here and it goes further. The allegations also show that non-applicant No.2 could gain access to the house only on the

intervention of US police and even when that happened, according to non-applicant No.2, applicant No.1 deserted her and went somewhere else. She

has alleged that all this was done by non-applicant No.2 on the incitement provided to him by his mother i.e. applicant No.3. This incident would make

out a very strong prima facie case for the offences registered against the applicants in the present matter.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that all these allegations are false and this could be seen from various WhatsApp messages, copies of

which have been filed on record. We have gone through these messages and it is true that they do not show very disturbed state of mind of

respondent No.2. But, being subjected to cruelty through various acts perpetrated against a person consistently is one thing and not letting that cruelty

affect the outwardly personality of the victim is another thing. It appears to us that non-applicant No.2 in sending messages has only tried, prima facie,

to put up a brave face, inspite of ordeal of extreme kind that she has gone through so far. Therefore, we do not think that at this stage these

documents would really help the case of the applicants so as to secure a relief in the nature of quashing of the FIR. Even otherwise, law in this regard

is settled. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot examine the falsity or otherwise of the allegations, if they together,

when taken at their face value, constitute the alleged offence. A useful reference in this regard may be made to the observations of the Hon’ble

Apex Court appearing in paragraph 12 made in the case of Suresh Kumar Goyal and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR

2019 Supreme Court 535 which is re-produced thus:

“28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating

the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining

how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations

levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving

finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to

substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable

consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There

is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled

allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of

the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the

prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all

stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in

the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate

the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/ complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be

rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that

the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable

facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the

material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/

complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of

recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,

being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to

dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to

exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the

ends of justice.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for

quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable

quality?

30.2. Step two : whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused

i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a

reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three : whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such

that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings

in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court

time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would

not conclude in the conviction of the accused.â€​

The investigation seems to be almost complete and the charge-sheet would also be filed very soon, provided permission is granted by this Court.

So, whatever now being said on behalf of the applicants would have to be proved by the applicants through their defence and that would be possible

only when the evidence is available for its appreciation on merits of the case.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant No.1 had already purchased a return ticket of respondent No.2 to India for 20th

May, 2019 on 25th February, 2019 for the reason that her VISA was expiring on 26th June, 2019 and, therefore, there is no truth in the allegation that

she was forced to return to India by applicant No.1. Again, we would only say that this is a matter of defence and would have to be considered on

merits of the case. In any case, we have not understood as to why a newly married husband would decide to send back his wife almost a month ago

before the last date of expiry of VISA rather he would purchase a return ticket just a few days before expiry of VISA. So, this fact would also lie in

the realm of defence of the applicant which cannot be assessed at this stage.

As regards applicant No.4, also, as stated earlier, there are specific allegations which make out a prima facie case against him as well, although he

may not be a relative of rest of the applicants.

In the result, we find no merit in the application and it deserves to be dismissed.

The application stands dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.