Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Aashish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.16768 of 2020
Decided on : 02-02-2021
ABUSE OF PROCESS - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - Sections 498A, 323, 494, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act - [22, 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court considered the legality of the cognizance order and the charge sheet against the applicant. The court found that a prima facie case for the alleged offence was made out against the applicant. The court also discussed the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the court at the pre-trial stage. The court refused to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings, as it did not see any abuse of the court's process at this stage.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application to quash the cognizance order and the entire proceedings of a criminal case against him. The opposite party had lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant, alleging mental and physical torture and non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand. The charge sheet was submitted only against the applicant, and cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate. The applicant argued that the cognizance order was illegal and that the offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable. The State opposed the prayer, contending that a prima facie case for the alleged offence was made out against the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case for the alleged offence was made out against the applicant. The court also emphasized that the evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the court at the pre-trial stage. The court refused to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings, as it did not see any abuse of the court's process at this stage.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the cognizance order and the charge sheet against the applicant, as well as the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the court at the pre-trial stage. The court also discussed the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings, as it did not see any abuse of the court's process at this stage.
Final Decision: The court refused to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings, as it did not see any abuse of the court's process at this stage.
JUDGMENT :
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 27.09.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 51902 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.23 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 506 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-Ist, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Heard Mr. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
4. Since legal submissions are being placed by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, this application is being heard at this stage without issuing notice to opposite party no.2 in view of the order proposed to be passed today. It is not necessary to issue notice to opposite party no.2, as he has no right to be heard at pre-cognizance stage.
5. From perusal of material on record, it transpires that the opposite party no.2, namely, Pinki Ahirwar has lodged an F.I.R. against seven named accused persons with the allegation that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant on 10.12.2014. After her marriage, she was being mentally and physically tortured by the husband-applicant as well as family members of her in-laws for non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand. It has also been alleged that the applicant asked the opposite party no.2 to go and reside at her parental place and after leaving her near the resident of her parents, the applicant went away. Thereafter, the applicant never contacted the opposite party no.2 and never used to receive the call of opposite party no.2. Subsequently, on 24.01.2018, the opposite party no.2 went to the place where the applicant resides and she was told by the neighbours that he had gone suddenly with his wife. When the opposite party no.2 told the neighbours that she is wife of the applicant, they told her that the applicant had told them that he was going with his wife, namely, Sumanlata, who is working in the Police Department, to Kanpur Nagar. The aforesaid fact was confirmed by the opposite party no.2 from Santosh Kumar, elder brother of applicant. When no option was left, the present F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Kanpur Nagar. The Investigating Officer, after proper investigation, has submitted the charge sheet only against the applicant on 23.09.2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act. On the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken by the concerned Magistrate on 27.09.2018 and summoned the applicant.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and no case under the relevant sections is made out against the applicant as there is no averment either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the marriage ceremony of the applicant was legally performed as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the concerned Magistrate without taking cognizance in accordance with law issued notices to the applicant to appear on 29.10.2018, which cannot be said to be the cognizance order in the matter. As per Rule 22 of General Rules (Criminal), upon the institution of a case an order-sheet in the prescribed form shall be opened. Upon it shall be recorded, every routine order passed by the court in the case and a note of every other order passed, including every order regarding a document produced before the court and also a note of the date of each hearing and the proceedings on that date. Rule 22 of Chapter IV of General Rules (Criminal) is reproduced herein below:-
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
