Kundan Singh Jeena & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 29.6.2014, cognizance and summoning order dated 15.9.2014 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2458/2014, State v. Kalyan Singh Jeena & Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital.

The background facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the present criminal miscellaneous application are:-

2.1 Marriage of complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Kusum Bisht was solemnized with Kalyan Singh Jeena (brother of 1st and 2nd applicants and brother-in-law of 3rd applicant herein) in the year 2010. Complainant is employed in the Police Department of Uttarakhand and her husband is serving in the Indian Army.

2.2 On 4.5.2014, respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against her husband and present applicants alleging that in the evening of that day, she was going to fetch milk from the market; her son demanded money from her husband; her husband took it as an opportunity to enter into argument; then her husband assaulted her and said that he would kill her on that day itself; her husband, younger brothers-in-law (devar) Kundan Singh Jeena and Mahendra Singh Jeena and brother-in-law (nandoi) Devendra Singh Negi were harassing her for the dowry since the beginning and they instigated her husband to kill her.

2.3 Pursuant to the above FIR, investigation was made and thereafter police filed the chargesheet against present applicants and the husband of the complainant. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons, vide the impugned order, to face trial for the offences mentioned hereinabove.

Here it may be noted that this C482 application was filed in the year 2014 and yet no counter affidavit, either on behalf of the State or the complainant, could be filed till date. It may also be noted here that the husband Kalyan Singh Jeena is not an applicant in the present criminal miscellaneous application.

Learned Counsel for the applicants argued that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, sweeping and general; applicants are living separately from the complainant and her husband and no specific date or details of any incident, regarding harassment by the applicants for dowry or instigating her husband to kill her, has been mentioned in the FIR.

Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kartick Chandra Majee alias Kartik Chand Majee v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 13 SCC 747, wherein it has been held that where the criminal proceeding is instituted with ulterior motive, the proceedings should be quashed on the said ground. In another verdict relied upon by the learned Counsel rendered in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no specific allegation against the appellant-accused that they demanded any dowry and the contents of the FIR indicated that they were casually referred to and no prima facie case was made out against them.

Learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant argued that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case which can be decided after the trial of the accused applicants.

As regards the offence under Section 504 IPC, in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44, the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed the ingredients of Section 504 IPC and observed as under:

"Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC."

Similarly, the essential ingredients which constitute the offence under section 323 IPC are (i) the accused caused hurt to another person; (ii) he caused such hurt voluntarily; and (iii) Section 334 IPC does not protect his act.

As is evident from the bare reading of the FIR that the same does not disclose any such allegation to satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 or 323 IPC. Likewise, reading of the FIR does not prima facie disclose any offence under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants. No specific date or details of any incident has been mentioned in the FIR. There is no specific allegation regarding any applicants except common general allegation against everyone.

All told, considering the papers on record and on a plain reading of the allegations made in the FIR, I am of the view that the allegations made in the complaint do not inspire confidence of the Court and even if the same are considered on the face value, a prima facie case is not made out against the applicants.

Consequently, the present C482 application is allowed. Chargesheet dated 29.6.2014, cognizance and summoning order dated 15.9.2014 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2458/2014, State v. Kalyan Singh Jeena & Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, so far as these relate to the present applicants, are hereby quashed. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.