Seema Devi & Others vs State Of H.P. & Another

FIR No.,Dated,Police Station,Sections

20 of 2012,17.1.2012,"Una, District Una, H.P.","498-A, 406, 34 IPC

relatives had nothing to gain. Thus, the possibility of framing them in a criminal case cannot be ruled out to put pressure on the husband, Manjeet",,,

Singh. Thus, the mere allegations that in their presence, father-in-law and mother-in-law had taunted the complainant would not at all make out any",,,

case against them. Even as per the complainant, her husband was not present, and he had already left for Canada on 6th August 2009. This incident a",,,

day before Manjeet Singh leaving India for Canada. Once the wife was supposed to settle down in Canada, Manjeet did not need to keep dowry",,,

articles in India. Thus, even if these allegations are accepted to be accurate and correct on their face value, it still does not make any case against",,,

these relatives.,,,

So far as the allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, these are too general. The intention and conduct of the father-",,,

in-law, mother-in-law, and husband prima facie make these allegations false and doubtful on its face. Per the contents of the application, which led to",,,

the registration of FIR, the complainant herself stated that immediately after marriage, the accused got her passport made and got the marriage",,,

registered. It means that the complainant was not having any passport at the time of marriage. In the year 2009, making of passport was not as easy",,,

as in the present time; instead, it was a very tedious process. Accused must have spent his entire vacation getting the marriage registered and making",,,

a passport for his newly wedded wife. The conduct of the accused and his parents in fulfilling their promise by getting her passport and registering the,,,

marriage proves that the marriage was not performed to terminate the same in between.,,,

Furthermore, due to this wedding, the complainant becomes pregnant, which would also show the intention of Manjeet Singh, her husband, to raise",,,

the family. Since Manjeet Singh was to move back to Canada, the pregnancy part must have the tacit approval of her parents because getting a visa",,,

would have taken time. Given the overall conduct of the complainant's husband, her father-in-law, and mother-in-law, nowhere leads to any inference",,,

or points out towards any action, which would amount to breaking their promises or deceiving or cheating her. Thus, even if the allegations in the FIR",,,

are taken as gospel truth, they do not make any case to launch a prosecution. Instead, the possibility of the complainant leveling allegations to make",,,

out a case for cognizable offenses so that FIR is registered and subsequently used as a settlement tool cannot be ruled out.,,,

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC:,,,

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that [30] “It is a matter of common experience",,,

that most of these complaints under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper,,,

deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time,",,,

rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. [32] Unfortunately, at the time of filing of",,,

the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable,,,

harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. [33]. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish",,,

the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and,,,

all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The",,,

courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing,,,

with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely,,,

visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be,,,

scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in",,,

the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's,,,

relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely",,,

long and painful.â€​,,,

In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Para 28, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “We, therefore, deem it just and legally",,,

appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material,,,

which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in,,,

physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they,,,

could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set",,,

aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand,,,

overruled.â€​,,,

STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:,,,

In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards",,,

the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The,,,

Court holds, “… This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing",,,

of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred",,,

from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the,,,

accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have,,,

been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be,,,

exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition,,,

do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case",,,

power under section 482 of the Code can be exercised.,,,

In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the High Court",,,

need not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate.,,,

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON JURISPRUDENCE OF QUASHING:,,,

The law is almost settled by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the FIR and the investigation do not make out any,,,

case or the prosecution is inherently and patently illegal, and the matters that fulfill the criteria for quashing, the High Court resorting to S. 482 CrPC",,,

can quash such FIR and consequent proceedings. In R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, a three-member Bench of Hon’ble",,,

Supreme Court holds, “[6]. ...It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper",,,

case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted",,,

against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings",,,

at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent",,,

jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the",,,

proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal,,,

proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would,,,

secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and,,,

it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would be justified in quashing",,,

the proceedings on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where",,,

the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not",,,

constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First,,,

Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it",,,

would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the,,,

inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the,,,

accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or,,,

manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no",,,

legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal,,,

evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A, the High Court",,,

would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it",,,

would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the,,,

accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court,,,

under S. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re: Shripad G.",,,

Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR",,,

54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), NripendraBhusan Roy v. GobinaBandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v.",,,

SivaramaSubramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 : (AIR 1925 Mad 39).â€​",,,

In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692, a three judges’ bench of the Hon’ble Supreme",,,

Court holds “[7]. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the",,,

court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any,,,

special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.,,,

This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction,,,

is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into",,,

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.â€​,,,

CONCLUSION:,,,

FIR was registered in the year 2012 against almost every family members, in all 11 persons, who are facing criminal prosecution. A perusal of the",,,

FIR does not make out any case and as such this Court would certainly resort to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and deem it,,,

appropriate to quash this FIR. Its continuation may cause grave injustice to the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the,,,

catena of case law, but since on the appraisal of the allegations, this Court is satisfied that FIR deserves to be quashed, as such there is no need to",,,

refer to those judgments.,,,

An analysis of the entire allegations and the investigation does not contain legally admissible evidence and thus, does not make out any prima facie",,,

case against the petitioners.,,,

Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any",,,

fruitful purpose whatsoever.,,,

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds “[47]. As far",,,

as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the",,,

reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their,,,

petition for quashing of the FIR/Charge-sheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold",,,

that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated.â€​",,,

Given above, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to",,,

quash the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed qua the petitioners, and all the consequential proceedings qua the",,,

petitioners are also quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.",,,

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.",,,