Parvez And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet and the order of cognizance dated 6.5.2019,

passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2282 of 2019, whereby accused applicant no. 1 has

been summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while

accused applicants no. 2 and 3 have been summoned to face trial for the offences under Sections 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of complainant/respondent no. 3 Smt. Nasreen was solemnized on 30.3.2018 with applicant no. 1 Parvej as per

Muslim customs and ceremonies. On 25.1.2019, respondent no. 3 lodged an FIR against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (applicants 1, 2

and 3 respectively) alleging that though her parents gave huge amount of dowry in the marriage, but accused applicants were not satisfied with the

same and they demanded more dowry. When the complainant resisted, accused applicants harassed and threatened the her and ultimately ousted her

from the matrimonial house. At 7.30 AM on 21.12.2018, the accused applicants allegedly came in the parental house of the complainant and they

assaulted her with balkati and danda with intention to kill her. Accused applicants also allegedly tried to strangulate the complainant by putting rope

in her neck. On raising the alarm, the accused applicants fled from the spot. While fleeing the spot, the applicant no. 1 also allegedly divorced the

complainant by saying “Talaq†three times. Accused applicants also held out threats to the complainant. When the complainant along with her

mother was going for the medical examination, the accused applicants again met them at G.T. Road and they again threatened the complainant. Then

the complainant went to Mangalore and got herself medically examined.

Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 3, investigation was made and police submitted the chargesheet against the accused applicant and

thereafter the Court below has summoned the applicants to face trial for the aforementioned offences.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants contended that the complainant lodged the false report and the story is cooked up. No incident, as alleged in

the FIR, took place and the applicant no. 1 is a bright student and has done M.Tech from IIT Roorkee and presently doing Ph.D. Learned Senior

Counsel also contended that false medical examination report has been procured by the complainant and this is the reason that the complainant did not

get herself medically examined at Roorkee where she was living, but chose to travel to Manglore, situated at a distance of nearly 20 kms from

Roorkee, for the medical examination. In fact, she obtained a false medical report from Manglore in connivance with the doctor of Community Health

Centre, Manglore and thereafter lodged the report. Subsequently, on the complaint of the applicants, a medical board was constituted, which examined

the complainant on 13.6.2019 and thereafter differed with the medical examination report given by the doctor of Community Health Centre, Manglore

and opined that the injuries recorded in the said medical report were not matching in examination by the medical board. Learned Senior Counsel

argued that the present proceedings against the applicants are sheer abuse of the process of Court and the same has been initiated with intention to

ruin the career of the applicant no. 1 and hence, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the complainant contended that ever since the marriage, the accused applicants were continuously harassing and torturing the

complainant for their demand of dowry and when their demand of dowry was not fulfilled, they committed the aforementioned incident with intention

to kill the complainant. Learned Counsel also argued that in fact the complainant wanted to get herself medically examined at Roorkee itself, but when

she was trying to do so, accused applicants again met her at G.T. Road and they again threatened her. Therefore, she went to Manglore and got

herself medically examined and as many as nine injuries are recorded in the medical report. As regards the subsequent medical examination by the

medical board, learned Counsel argued that the alleged incident is of 21.12.2018 and the medical board examined the complainant on 13.6.2019, after

more than five months and, therefore, the injuries could not match at that stage. Learned Counsel also submitted that after investigation, the police

filed the chargesheet and there are credible and reliable evidence against the applicants and the trial court has rightly summoned the accused

applicants to face the trial.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants also argued that there are many CCTV cameras installed in and around the place where the applicants as

well as the complainant are living, but the applicants are not caught in any of the CCTV footage and this fact belies the prosecution story.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that disputed questions of fact are involved in

the present case and the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case

against the accused applicant.

It is settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has

elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 ,and

has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought

to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. However, the inherent power should not

be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this petition. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if

any, stands vacated.