U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 19.02.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 97 of 2016, Sonal Vs. Deepak Sharma, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. The respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant (husband of respondent No.2) for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of Rekha and Praveen Saini were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The documents were filed by the complainant. After considering the material on record, the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee summoned the accused-Applicant to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the summoning order, applicant filed a Revision, which too was dismissed. Hence the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is living in Bulandshahar and parents of the victim were living in Jodhpur. After 9 months, brother of the victim started living in Roorkee. Thereafter the victim filed a complaint against the applicant.

4. Offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC is a continuing offence. The victim will lodge an FIR only at the place where she has taken shelter and, therefore, it cannot be said as to why she filed an FIR in PS Roorkee, which is in Uttarakhand State. The other pleas taken by the applicant are factual in nature. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the proceedings are nothing but a counterblast to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings initiated by the respondent.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles, which are relevant in the context of present case, can be summarized as below:

i. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

ii. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

iii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.

iv. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

v. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle t