Back
2023 Supreme(All) 238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Om Prakash @ Guddu and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 37952 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023
For the Appellants : Pranav Tiwary, Atharva Dixit.
For the Respondent: Udai Chandani.
Point of Law: High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if it finds necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or if this Court finds that there is abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B, 113-B, 3(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227, 482 - Quash charge sheet - Inexperience and negligence of treating doctor - Unfortunate demise of his wife - Application moved to quash charge sheet – There are statements of deceased prior to her death showing maltreatment and cruelty with her by the applicants. [Para 52]
Finding of the Court: There is report and evidence of treating doctor in favour of prosecution - There is expert opinion that death of deceased might have been occurred by manual strangulation - There are statements of deceased prior to her death showing maltreatment and cruelty with her by applicants - There is also allegation of unethical relation between applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 5, Court is of considered view that charge sheet and rejection of discharge application of applicants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be interfered with - Court can sift and weigh evidence for purpose of finding out whether prima facie case against accused has been made out - If two views are equally possible and evidence gives rise to a grave suspicion, charge may be framed - Court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing materials nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects - At this stage defence of accused has not to be seen - Court is again of view that at this stage no case is made out in favour of applicants and it cannot be concluded that charge sheet has been submitted without proper and sufficient ground and rejection of discharge application is bad in view of fact and law of case.
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved to quash the charge sheet dated 20.01.2021 and the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in ST No. 298 of 2022 (State vs. Umashankar and Others) in Crime No. 163 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Manduadih, District Varanasi pending in the Court of CJM, Varanasi.
3. In the application it has wrongly been mentioned that the case was pending in the Court of CJM, Varanasi virtually the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and at present the case is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Varanasi as ST No. 298 of 2022.
4. In brief, facts of the case are that the deceased was the daughter of opposite party no. 2, Om Prakash and was the wife of applicant no. 1, Om Prakash @ Guddu and daughter-in-law of applicant nos. 3 and 4. Applicant no. 2 is the real brother of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 5, Radha Devi is the wife of applicant no. 2.
5. As per this application marriage between the deceased, Nidhi Prakash and applicant no. 1, Om Prakash @ Guddu was solemnized on 25.06.2018 without any dowry and charge of additional demand of dowry of a car and Rs. 5,00,000/- has been denied by the applicant. It is wrong to say that the deceased was kept hungry due to which her health was significantly deteriorated. It is also wrong that during her pregnancy proper treatment was not provided to her but she was in the treatment and care of Dr. Sarojni Singh. The facts of the FIR are false and frivolous. There is an unexplained, inordinate delay of four days in lodging the FIR. Applicant no. 1 belongs to a very well respectable family and is a Grade-II Officer in Indian Railway since 2005. Neither any demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage nor subsequent to it. The deceased was accorded full love and affection at her matrimonial house by the applicants. The relationship between the applicants and the deceased was extremely loving and cordial. Applicant no. 1 had also encouraged and supported her in pursuing her B.Ed. degree and had furnished the requisite fees and also helped in obtaining the admit card for the B.Ed. examination. From the text messages annexed as annexure-3 to the affidavit it would reflect that the informant was a man of limited financial means and a man of ordinary prudence would not believe that any demand of dowry was being made by the applicants from such informant. Some text messages between the applicant no. 1 and the deceased which being sensitive and personal in nature have not been brought on record but they show that the deceased was leading a happily married life on very good terms with her husband. No FIR or complaint or any proceedings were initiated by the deceased or the informant prior to the lodging of the present FIR. Since the deceased became pregnant, she was receiving thorough and proficient medical attention and supervision on the clinic of Dr. Sarojni Singh, a renowned gynecologist in Varanasi where applicant no. 5 Radh Devi, sister-in-law of applicant no. 1 and the deceased was also supervised and treated and had delivered her child successfully. Hence, the deceased had been taken there. Allegation of opposite party no. 2 that his daughter did not receive adequate treatment and was taken to an inferior clinic is completely baseless and unwarranted.
6. Earlier in the month of March, 2019, the deceased had become pregnant and had promptly received medical treatment at the New Life Hospital, Varanasi where she was being treated by Dr. Neelam Ohari. Knowing the news of pregnancy, her mother came to the house of the applicants and insisted that the first child be born at her parental h
