Nand Kishore Singh and Others vs Shri Rambali Singh Chandel

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceedings of criminal case No. 1175/2004 pending before the JMFC, Dabra, against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. The facts of the petition in short are that respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint alleging that petitioner No. 1-Nandkishore approached him for the marriage of his son/petitioner No. 3 with his daughter Geetanjali and in that context, provided him Bio data and documents relating to education of his son Sanjay Singh showing him to be B.Sc. passed. On this, he settled the marriage of his daughter with Sanjay. On 25.4.2001 marriage was performed, however, after marriage, in-laws of his daughter started demanding dowry, therefore, complaint u/s 498-A of IPC has been filed against the petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant thought it appropriate to verify the Bio data and mark-sheet provided by the petitioners. For this purpose, he submitted an application in the Jiwaji University and he received a report from the university that the aforesaid mark-sheet is of one Sushil Kumar son of Hargovind. He also came to know that the facts mentioned in the Bio data are also incorrect. The complainant lodged the report in this regard to police Station, Dabra, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, he filed the private complaint before the JMFC, Dabra. After due inquiry, the private complaint has been registered and petitioners have been summoned.

It is submitted that present complaint has been filed by the complainant for fulfilling his ulterior motive to demand money from the petitioners. The parties have solved their dispute. The daughter of the complainant has filed a compromise petition in the case u/s 498-A of IPC before the learned trial Court and agreed to finish that case. Both the parties have also filed joint divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The daughter of the respondent has also filed her affidavit. It is submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, therefore, it is prayed that criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that petitioners have cheated him by providing false Bio data and mark-sheet of Sanjay. There is no ground for quashing the proceeding.

I have perused the record. It is not disputed that marriage of daughter of complainant took place with petitioner No. 3-Sanjay in the year 2001. It is also not disputed that the daughter of the complainant lodged a report against the petitioners No. 1 to 3, upon which a case was registered under Sections 498-A, 294, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC.

Annexure P/2 reveals that daughter of the complainant, namely Geetanjali, has filed an application seeking permission to compound the case on 14.10.04. The learned JMFC after having satisfied that complainant Geetanjali has compromised with her own free will without fear, coercion, undue influence etc., allowed the prayer and on the basis of compromise, acquitted petitioners Sanjay, Nandkishore and Pushpa Devi for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC, however, as the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC is non-compoundable, it was directed that trial for that offence shall continue.

Annexure P/3 reveals that an agreement has been executed in between Sanjay and Geetanjali on 14.10.04 that they have compromised the matter and party No. 2 -Geetanjali has filed an application in the proceeding for the grant of maintenance stating that in future she will not claim any maintenance. It is further agreed that whichever party prefers a divorce petition in the Family Court, the other party would give his/her consent in getting the decree of divorce on the basis of compromise. Copy of affidavit of Geetanjali to this effect has also been filed.

Copy of the statement of Smt. Geetanjali in divorce petition bearing case No. 436-A/06 HMA reveals that on 29.6.07 her statement has been recorded in which she has stated that she has filed an application u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on her own free will without fear or undue influence and submitted that on the basis of compromise, decree of divorce be granted.

Copy of the statement of Rambali Singh Chandel, who is the father of Geetanjali and who has filed the private complaint, has also been filed, in which in para 21 he has admitted that his daughter had instituted a proceeding u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and u/s 498-A of IPC and they have been disposed of on the basis of compromise. However, he has stated that he has not compromised, his daughter has compromised. In para 15, he has categorically admitted that Sanjay was less educated than his daughter, in spite of that, he married his daughter with Sanjay.

With regard to exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, has held as under:-

This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specified provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In the instant case, it is to be seen whether this case is covered by the guidelines laid down in Bhajanlal''s case. As noticed above, the complainant has categorically admitted that he was knowing that petitioner No. 3-Sanjay is less educated than his daughter, even then he got married his daughter with Sanjay. The daughter of the complainant had lodged a case under Sections 498-A, 294, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC and also filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. Geetanjali and petitioner No. 3-Sanjay have agreed to resolve all their disputes and in pursuance of the agreement, proceedings u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and 498-A of IPC have been disposed of and Geetanjali and Sanjay have also obtained divorce by mutual consent by filing petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, this petition at the behest of father of Geetanjali on the pretext that a false mark-sheet of B.Sc. passed has been given to him by the petitioners and thereby he agreed for the marriage of his daughter with Sanjay and thus he has been cheated, appears to have been filed with an ulterior motive to extract money from the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, continuance of such criminal proceedings in the backdrop of facts that criminal proceedings instituted by the daughter of the complainant have been disposed of on the basis of compromise and divorce has also been prayed by mutual consent, certainly amounts to an abuse of process of law. In view of the above, criminal proceedings of criminal case No. 1175/2004 pending before the JMFC, Dabra, against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC are hereby quashed.