Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Smt. Isha Anand Kapoor Wife Of Shri Gunjan Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 CrPC No. 130 of 2021
Decided on : 16-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. B.L. SONI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, MR. NARENDER THAKUR, MR. KARAN SINGH KANWAR, ADVOCATE
Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C when allegations of dowry harassment are vague and general, especially when involving near relatives of the husband, as established by relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Headnote:
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Dowry Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A, Section 506 - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2022) 6 SCC 599 - The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner based on vague and general allegations of dowry harassment, citing relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Supreme Court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a summoning order and consequential proceedings in a case where she was falsely implicated for dowry harassment. The petitioner, residing in Nairobi, Kenya, was accused by her sister-in-law of making general and vague allegations without evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and general, with no specific evidence found during the investigation. The court cited relevant Supreme Court judgments to support the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the false implication of the petitioner in a dowry harassment case based on vague and general allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C when allegations are vague and general, especially in cases involving near relatives of the husband. The court also emphasized the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime before roping in distant relatives in matrimonial disputes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner, citing abuse of the process of the Court.
ORDER :
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of summoning order dated 18.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in case No. 547-I/2020, titled State versus Aman Anand and others and also the consequential proceedings.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is wife of Aman Anand, who is brother of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint dated 14.07.2020 to the Chairperson Himachal Pradesh Women Welfare Board, Kullu. She alleged ill-treatment at the hands of her in-laws for dowry. The petitioner was also named in the said complaint. The complaint before Women Welfare Board was still pending; respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint to SHO Women Police Station Kullu, making allegations of harassment for dowry against her inlaws including the petitioner. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 15 of 2020 was registered on 18th July, 2020, under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code at Women Police Station, Kullu. During investigation, a supplementary statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she again levelled allegations against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed, on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu had taken the cognizance vide order dated 18.09.2020, as noticed above.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner is married and has been residing in Nairobi, Kenya with her husband and children. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has levelled allegations against petitioner which are general and vague. The omnibus allegations made against petitioner have no basis. Except for the bald allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against petitioner, no evidence has been found against her during entire investigation. The prosecution against petitioner is alleged to be motivated.
5. Respondent No.1-State has filed reply. The factual position is not denied. The reliance has been placed on the allegations made by respondent No.2 against petitioner in FIR, as also supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the prima facie involvement of the petitioner has been found on investigation of the case, therefore, the proceedings against her are lawful and no exception can be taken to the cognizance order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu.
6. Respondent No.2 has also filed her separate reply. The cognizance order has been supported the allegation, as levelled against the petitioner in FIR and statement of respondent No.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, have been reiterated.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
8. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though this Curt has vast jurisdiction and powers under aforesaid provision of law, but the same has to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purposes of preventing abuse of process of law or to protect the interest of justice.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly come across the identical situations with which this Court is confronted in the instant case. The dictum of law as pronounced from time to time is that the High Court, in appropriate cases, can quash criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC, where allegations are vague, general and omnibus. This has been made applicable especially in the cases where the near relatives of husband are also sought to be implicated.
10. In the land mark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 it has been observed as under:-
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
