Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.
Kirti – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 20183 of 2013, Application U/s 482 No. 12890 of 2019
Decided On : 28-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Santosh Tripathi, Manas Bhargava, Mandvi Tripathi, V.P. Srivastava
For the Respondents: Satish Kumar Tyagi, Devesh Mishra, Ram Pandey, Vinod Kumar Mishra

Courts must protect against the misuse of legal provisions, quashing proceedings that lack substantial allegations or evidence, to prevent abuse of the judicial system.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Quashing of FIR - Applications filed to quash prosecution alleging that complaint based on false allegations made with ulterior motives, leading to a blow to justice. Police inquiry revealed no merit in the allegations and the American Court issued injunction against the opposite party. The court stressed the abuse of process of law and the importance of evidence; proceedings were quashed for lack of a prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 8, 20, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The applicant and opposite party married on 14.02.2019, later moved to the USA, and following personal disputes, divorce was filed. Allegations of dowry-related harassment and cruelty made against the entire family, including the mild evidence supporting them.

Findings of Court:
The court found the FIR lacked specific instances of misconduct or evidence of unlawful behavior.

Issues: Determining whether the allegations constituted a valid case under the relevant sections, alongside examining the potential abuse of judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that proceedings can be quashed if allegations, if taken at face value, do not substantiate a case. Abuse of process is actionable, and lower standards for alleging domestic cruelty or dowry demands risk judicial misuse.

Result: Applications allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of proceedings initiated. (Para 1 , 2)
2. overview of the case and marriage background. (Para 3 , 4)
3. claims of false implication and abuse of process. (Para 5 , 8 , 9)
4. court's findings on misuse of process. (Para 6 , 7)
5. opposing arguments by the respondents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. court’s analysis on misuse of legal provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22)
7. application of section 482 cr.p.c. principles. (Para 18 , 23)
8. final order quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. Since these applications arising out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

3. The instant Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a request to quash the Case No. 1643 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections 4 98-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the Court of ACJM - VIII, Ghaziabad.

4. The prosecution story in brief of the instant case are as follows:

Marriage of applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 14.02.2019 at Destination Resort, Solan, Himanchal Pradesh according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Thereafter, on 24.02.2019, the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) along with opposite party no. 2 left for USA, where they have blessed with a son on 02.02.2010 in USA and all were living there happily, but due to some difference of opinion, the relationship between applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) and opposite party no. 2 became strained, thereafter, applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) filed a complaint for divorce on 09.02.2012 before Oakland County, Circuit Court, Family Division, State of Michigan. In the said case, an ex-parte interim order regarding custody and parenting time was passed on 10.02.2012 by the concerned Judge of Family Court directing the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) and opposite party no. 2 not to change the domicile and residence of the minor child from the State of Michigan without a written order from the Court. Thereafter, on 23.03.2012, an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no. 2, though, an FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and three other co-accused persons with false and frivolous allegations, which was registered as Case Crime No. 02 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad. Prior to filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 had made a complaint before S.S.P. Ghaziabad, in which the SHO was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report, thereafter, making a thorough enquiry by SHO concerned, submitted the report mentioning therein that there is no truth in the complaint of opposite party no. 2 and no further legal action is required in the complaint. Opposite party no. 2 had also moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is still pending consideration. On 26.04.2012, the American Court has issued warrant of arrest of opposite party no. 2 as she has violated order of the Court in relation to carrying away minor child, who is U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in U.S.A. and carried him to India. On 26.05.2012, I.O. without conducting a proper and fair investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and three other co-accused persons under the aforesaid sections. On 29.05.2012, in the divorce petition filed by the applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar) against the opposite party no. 2, even the concerned Judge of Family Court, State of Michigan has passed an order dissolving the marriage between the parties.

4.1 It has been contended by the learned couns