HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1528 of 2013
Applicant :- Arvind Singh And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kishor Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,P.K. Dubey,S. Niranjan
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Mangal Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S. Niranjan, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2189 of 2010 (Smt. Babita Vs. Arvind Singh and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Najibabad, District Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Present application came up for admission on 15.1.2013 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
“Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. He prays for and is allowed six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List after eight weeks before the appropriate Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, roping in all the family members of her husband Arvind Kumar, applicant no. 1 with the ulterior intention of harassing them and although from the unrebutted material on record no offence is disclosed against them and their case is clearly distinguishable from that of her husband Arvind Kumar, applicant no. 1, yet the court below has by the impugned order summoned the applicants in a mechanical manner.
Submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, prima facie, appear to be correct and he has made out a case for grant of interim relief.
Until order otherwise, further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2189 of 2012, Smt. Babita Vs. Arvind Singh and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IInd, Kanpur Nagar shall remain stayed against the applicant nos. 2 to 7. However, this application stands dismissed qua the applicant no. 1.”
In compliance of order dated 15.11.2013, both the parties have filed counter affidavits, to which applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit.
It transpires from record that marriage of applicant No. 1 Arvind Singh was solemnized with opposite party No. 2 on 28.11.2008. Subsequently, relationship between the applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 became strained on account of marital discord. Faced with despair and destitution, opposite party No. 2 filed complaint dated 10.7.2012 against present applicants. Thereafter, the Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant and his witnesses in terms of Sections 200/202 Cr. P. C. On the strength of aforesaid material, Magistrate recorded his prima facie satisfaction and consequently summoned the present applicants, vide summoning order dated 30.11.2012. Thus feeling aggrieved by above mentioned summoning order, the applicants have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that while passing interim order dated 15.1.2013 this Court rejected the present application in so far as it pertains to applicant No. 1 husband Arvind Singh. Therefore, present application survives only in respect of applicant Nos. 2 to 7. He further contends that applicant No. 2 is father-in-law, applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant No. 4 is jeth, applicant No. 5 is jethani, applicant No. 6 is devar and applicant No. 7 is devarani of opposite party No. 2. As such, entire family members of applicant No. 1 have been implicated in the above mentioned complaint case. Inviting attention of the Court to the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (12) SCC, 741, he submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party No. 2 against family members of applicant No. 1, who is the husband of opposite party No. 2 cannot be sustained. He has referred paragraphs 21 and 22 of aforesaid judgement, which are quoted herein below:-
“21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.
22. In the instant matter, when the complainant and her husband are divorced as the complainant-wife secured an ex-parte decree of divorce, the same could have weighed with the High Court to consider whether proceeding initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite of absence of specific allegations at least against the brother and sister of the complainant?s husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not have amounted to abuse of the process of the court. The High Court, however, seems not to have examined these aspects carefully and have thus side- tracked all these considerations merely on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction could be raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial”
It is thus submitted that subsequent to the filing of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C., opposite party No. 2 has filed a divorce suit, which has been decreed by Court below, vide judgement and order dated 29.1.2016. As such on date, there is no matrimonial dispute in between the applicants and opposite party No. 2. He, therefore, submits that initiation of criminal proceedings against all the family members of the husband of opposite party No. 2 is nothing else, but an abuse of process of the Court. Consequently, entire proceedings are malicious and hence liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Mangal Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S. Niranjan, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the present application. They have jointly submitted that no irregularity is pointed out by the learned counsel for applicants in the impugned order dated 30.11.2012. Once the Magistrate has recorded prima facie satisfaction with regard to the commission of offence under the charging sections against all the named accused, no case for interference is made out in present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C., hence present application is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for parties, this Court finds that opposite party No. 2 has implicated all the family members of applicant No. 1 in present criminal proceedings. Perusal of complaint copy of which has been appended as Annexure 1 is affidavit goes to show that vague and general allegations have been levelled against other family members of applicant No. 1 who is the husband of opposite party No. 2. Such practice of implicating entire family members in a matrimonial dispute has clearly been deprecated in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Furthermore, opposite party No. 2 filed a divorce suit which has been decreed. As such, there is no matrimonial or otherwise any relationship in between opposite party No. 2 and applicants. For this reason also, present criminal proceedings initiated against applicants 2 to 7 cannot be sustained.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is allowed.
Accordingly, summoning order dated 30.11.2012 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 2189 of 2010 (Smt. Babita Vs. Arvind Singh and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Najibabad, District Kanpur Nagar and the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case in so far as they relates to applicants 2 to 7 are, hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020
HSM
