Back
[2012(3) ADJ 324]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : VINOD PRASAD, J.
AFJAL KHAN AND OTHERS ....Applicants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Application No. 19085 of 2009, decided on 19th January, 2012)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Inherent power—Exercising of—Only when—Record of case does not disclose commission of any offence—Or when there is absolute no legal evidence against accused—Or when evidences likely to be adduced in case fails to establish charge—Or prosecution was initiated with mala fide/vindictive intentions—There is legal bar in continuation of the same. [Para 6]
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Criminal proceedings—Interference—When can be—When High Court is called upon to quash prosecution—It is not desirable that High Court should embark upon a roving enquiry on contested facts to deny assess to justice for illegitimate reason. [Para 7]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash certain criminal proceedings, emphasizing that such power should be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases where continuation of the proceedings would cause injustice or abuse of process (!) (!) .
The court outlined the legal principles governing the exercise of its inherent powers, including that proceedings can be quashed if no offence is disclosed on the face of the record, or if there is absolute lack of legal evidence, or if the proceedings are initiated mala fide or with vindictive intent (!) (!) .
The court cautioned against embarking on a roving enquiry into contested facts at the initial stage, stating that the power to quash should be exercised only when the allegations do not prima facie establish any offence or when the evidence is manifestly insufficient or improbable (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the existence of prima facie evidence against some accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings against others unless there is no credible material or specific allegations against them (!) (!) .
The decision clarified that proceedings against certain applicants, where allegations are vague or lack credible evidence, can be quashed to prevent harassment, while proceedings against others with sufficient material should continue (!) .
The court highlighted that allegations of harassment or dowry demand must be scrutinized carefully, and innocent family members should not be harassed based on vague or unsubstantiated claims (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised as a matter of routine but only to prevent abuse of process, miscarriage of justice, or when continuation of proceedings would be unjust (!) (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the assessment of evidence at this stage is limited to whether the allegations, if accepted, could constitute an offence, and that the detailed evaluation of evidence is the trial court’s responsibility (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the inherent power should be exercised with caution and only in the rarest of cases, to avoid unjustified interference with legitimate prosecution (!) (!) .
In this case, proceedings against certain applicants were quashed due to lack of credible evidence and vague allegations, whereas proceedings against others with substantial material were upheld and continued (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the principles and reasoning applied by the court in deciding the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—A family, father Irfan Khan (A-2),his wife Smt. Hazara Khatoon (A-3) and their sons Afjal Khan (A-1), Amzad Khan (A-4), Ajhar Khan (A-5), Athar Khan (A-6), and their daughter Ambiya Khatoon (A-7) and her husband Shaukat (A-8) have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash proceedings of their trial in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1076 of 2009, for offences under Section 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and their summoning order dated 2.7.2009 passed thereunder.
2. Complainant respondent wife Shabnam Bano (R-2) was noticed and she has filed a counter-affidavit to which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed on her behalf today in the Court which is also taken on record.
3. I have heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava and Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav representing complainant-respondent No. 2 and Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for respondent-State.
Before delving upon rival submissions, back ground facts, which has germinated filing of present Application, are narrated briefly, herein below.
A complaint, Annexure-3, was filed by (R-2) against the applicants before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur on 23.3.2009, as Complaint Case No. 1076 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, alleging thereunder that she had contracted marriage with Afzal Khan (A-1) on 25.5.2008 according to Islamic customs. In the marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry including ornaments, clothes, utensils, furniture, fridge, colour T.V., cooler, motorcycle etc. alongwith cash amount of Rs. 40,000/-.(R-2) went to her in-laws house and stayed there for two days and then returned back to her parental home where she stayed for another two/three days and then again returned back to her in-laws house. All the applicants resided in a joint family so much so that (A-7), though married, was also residing with them with her husband Shaukat (A-8).
4. While (R-2) was residing with her in-laws, the applicants raised a further demand of Rs. one lac as dowry because her father was employed in electricity department and for that end started torturing (R-2) by rebuking her with slanders. Albeit, (R-2) tolerated her torture, but informed her father, whenever he phoned her. Twenty days thereafter, complainant’s parents came to in-laws house alongwith their younger daughter Ishrat Bano and tried to pacify (A-1), (A-2) and (A-3) not to torture their daughter and make additional demand of money because they had already spent sufficient amount in the marriage and were not in a position to pay further amount. While returning back, parents left Ishrat Bano, in in-laws house, with complainant respondent No. 2. Some fifteen or twenty days, after Ishrat Bano returned back to her parents alongwith Amzad Khan (A-4). In spite of requests made by the parents, demand of additional dowry by the applicants escalated and husband (A-1), who was employed in C.R.P.F. threatened (R-2) with polygamy. A month after the marriage, husband (A-1) returned back to his duties but continue to persist his dowry demand from there also. In absence of her husband, (R-2) was tortured by rest of the applicants for fulfilling dowry demand and she was even assaulted for it. Shaukat (A-8) used to abet her torture. In August, 2008 complainant’s parents alongwith Guddan, Mohd. Umar, Ashraf, Irshad, Kureshi Khan and others came to applicants’ house and tried to mollify applicants and persuade them to desist from making dowry demand. A fortnight thereafter, (R-2) was turned out of her in-laws house after snatching away her stridhan and since then she was residing with her parents. Her brother-in- law Amzad Khan (A-4) had also enticed away her younger sister Ishrat Bano on 17.9.2008 at 1.30 p.m. for which enticement,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
