Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Jeet Ram Dhoni and two Others - Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1065 of 2018
Decided On : 18-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Mr. Rajesh Joshi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Mr. Bhavya Pratap Rautela, Adv. holding brief of Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani.

The court emphasized the need for caution and circumspection in exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, highlighting that quashing of proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule, and that the court should not interfere with police investigation unless there is no cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR.

Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4 - [482 of the Code] - [Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961] - The court discussed the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, emphasizing the need for caution and circumspection in quashing proceedings. It highlighted the limitations on the court's role in assessing the merits of allegations at the pre-trial stage and the requirement for allegations to be tested during trial. The court also referenced key legal principles from various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that quashing of proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule, and that the court should not interfere with police investigation unless there is no cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent alleged cruelty and dowry demands by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. The accused sought to quash the proceedings, claiming innocence and fabricated allegations.
Finding of the Court:

The court refused to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that the allegations should be tested at trial and that it cannot assess the merits of the case at the pre-trial stage. It clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for the disposal of the application and will not influence the Trial Court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings based on the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the need for caution and circumspection in quashing proceedings, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with police investigation unless there is no cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR. It also emphasized that quashing of proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule, and that the allegations should be tested during trial.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Code, refusing to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case. It clarified that the observations made in the judgment will not influence the Trial Court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

1. Applicants-accused persons Jeet Ram Dhoni, Smt. Draupadi Devi and Manoj Dhoni invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “the Code”) to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.112 of 2018 “State vs. Manoj Dhoni and Others”, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital.

2. Informant Smt. Jyoti, respondent no.2, lodged a First Information Report stating that she was married to Manoj Dhoni, applicant no.3, on 02.03.2016. They have a son, aged about three months. Her husband is an Assistant Professor. Jeet Ram Dhoni, applicant no.1 and Smt. Draupadi Devi are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. They pressurized her to give dowry. Her father took loans from bank and other people and gave dowry. About 15 days before the marriage, her in-laws demanded a Swift Dzire car. Her father bought the said car after taking a loan from the bank and gave it to them. At the time of marriage, she was doing her B.Pharma and now she is in 4th year. She has to take the permission of her in-laws on what to eat, what to wear and whom to talk to. Rs.5 lakh is being demanded by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. They harass her mentally and threaten her that if she does not bring the money, they will throw her out of the house and her husband will get married again. They beat her up and threw her out of the house and threatened to kill her if she returned without taking five lakh rupees. First Information Report was registered on 23.08.2017.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants-accused persons Manoj Dhoni, husband of respondent no.2/informant, applicants Smt. Draupadi Devi and Jeet Ram Dhoni, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent no.2 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned Trial Court took cognizance and passed summoning order against the applicants-accused persons on 30.03.2018.

4. Heard Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Bhavya Pratap Rautela, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

5. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicants are innocent persons. They have been implicated in this matter. FIR is delayed. Respondent no.2-informant was not happy in her marriage with the applicant no.3, hence she is continuously filing fabricated applications. She had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code and an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Applicant no.3 had made several requests to respondent no.2 to return her matrimonial house but she refused to return. The allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and a Swift Dzire car are false. The said car is registered in the name of the father of respondent no.2 and is with him (father of respondent no.2). The FIR is false and fabricated, therefore, the entire proceedings of the said criminal case deserve to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that during the investigation, sufficient evidence has been found against the applicants.

7. Mr. Bhavya Pratap Rautela, Advocate, contended that during the investigation, respondent no.2 had categorically stated that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. He further submitted that at this stage trial or mini trial cannot be conducted.

8. Section 482 of the Code envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, “to give effect to an order under the Code, or, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or, to secure the ends of justice.” Section 482 of the Code reads as follows: “Saving of inhere