Aagoshe Iram vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 September, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

Reserved.

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 18792 of 2017

Applicant :- Aagoshe Iram

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi,S.M. Iqbal Hasan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.164 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.337 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 326A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sambhal, District-Sambhal, pending in the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.

Some background facts in brief are that the applicant is the unmarried sister-in-law ‘Nanad’ of O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2, lodged an F.I.R. on 18.6.2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 326A,504 and 506 I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, against her husband and in-laws including the applicant with general allegations against all of them of dowry demand and harassment in connection thereof. The police after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all other accused persons except the present applicant who was a minor on the date of occurrence and also on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. However, she was later on summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial with other accused persons. Against the order of the learned trial court allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant filed Criminal Revision No.2744 of 2015 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 25.4.2016 dismissed the revision observing that the applicant may claim juvenility before the trial court by moving an application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act. The applicant moved an application before the trial court and the learned trial court, vide order dated 11/11/2016, declared the applicant a juvenile. Thereafter, the file of the applicant was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Meanwhile, the trial of the rest of the accused persons pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, concluded and all of them were acquitted of the charges because none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case and all of them turned hostile. However, the applicant’s trial could not be proceeded for the reason of her marriage and pregnancy, due to which she could not appear before the Juvenile Justice Board. As she had attained majority, in the meantime, coercive measures were issued against her by the Juvenile Justice Board, which are still continuing.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the husband and other in-laws, who were the main accused in this case, have been acquitted after conclusion of their trial, the applicant, who was minor ‘Nanad’ (sister-in-law) of the first informant and who was not the direct beneficiary, should not be tried unnecessarily. Moreso, when the chances of her conviction are remote. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in several cases, this Court has quashed the entire proceedings on the principles of doctrine of “stare decisis.” Reliance has been placed on three judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005 (3) JIC 243, judgment and order dated 21.12.2004, passed in the case of Ranvir Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Application No.14756 of 2004 and in Criminal Revision No.380 of 1987, Ayodhya Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Anr. and a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Diwan Singh Vs. State, 1965 (2) 118 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that,

“If two persons are prosecuted though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, then it will create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice.”

A perusal of the judgments of this Court, cited by learned counsel for the applicant shows that the facts of the case of Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar (supra) were almost the same as the facts of the case in hand. In the aforesaid case also, the applicant being below the age of 16 years, was declared juvenile and his filed was separated. The co-accuseds were put to trial and were acquitted by the learned trial court. The witnesses of occurrence were the same in both the cases, therefore, this Court held that if the applicant is put to trial, he will have to face unnecessary harassment without any result. This court quashed the entire proceedings observing as under:

“It is settled view that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the proceedings of the trial taking into account the principle of stare decisis. Whenever, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. In such matter, it is always advisable to terminate the proceedings at the stage of discharge.”

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, but he has fairly conceded that the applicant, being minor sister-in-law (nanad) of the O.P. No.2, the witnesses of facts having been turned hostile and the rest of the accused persons, including even the husband, being already acquitted by the learned trial court, there are bleak chances of conviction of the applicant in this case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case of Diwan Singh (supra) and in wake of earlier judgments of this Court cited above, the present application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

The entire proceedings of Case No.164 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.337 of 2014, under Sections 498A,326A,323,504 and 506 I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sambhal, District-Sambhal, pending in the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad are accordingly quashed.

A copy of this order be immediately sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for information and necessary compliance.

Order Date:-12.9.2017-SB

 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *