—
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 644, 645 and 646 of 2021
Reserved on: 11.12.2023
.
Date of Decision: 10th January, 2024
1. Cr.MMO No. 644 of 2021
Chanchal Rana
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh Others
…Respondents
2. Cr.MMO No. 645 of 2021
Gurdyal Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh Others
….Respondents
3. Cr.MMO No. 646 of 2021
Rajinder Kaur
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh Others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
2
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel,
Advocate in all the petitions.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.P.Singh, Deputy Advocate
General for Respondents No.1 and
.
2/State in all the petitions
Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for
Respondent No.3 in all the petitions.
Rakesh Kainthla,Judge
The informant/respondent No. 3 was married to the
petitioner Chanchal Rana in the year 2020 as per Hindu rites and
customs. The informant and her family members spent more
money than their capacity to meet the demands raised by the
petitioners and their family members. Adequate gifts were
provided to the petitioners and their family members. The
mother-in-law of the informant took her ornaments and told her
that she could take them as and when needed. The informant
demanded the ornaments but these were not returned to her. The
petitioner Chanchal Rana was serving in the Bank of India in
Madhya Pradesh and he left for his job after 10 days of the
marriage. The mother-in-law of the informant started taunting
her by saying that the rooms of her house were empty and the
informant and her family members had not provided sufficient
dowry to fill them. ₹ 15,000/- was demanded from the informant
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
3
and she was told to meet the household expenses. Her parents-
in-law used to taunt her on trivial matters. Whenever the
informant would narrate these facts to her husband, he would ask
.
her to meet their demands. The petitioner Chanchal Rana and his
father used to ask as to why a small vehicle was provided instead
of a big vehicle should have been provided. They asked the
informant to sell the vehicle and buy a large vehicle. The
petitioner Chanchal Rana used to pressurise the informant to get
him transferred even after spending the money. He demanded
money from the informant. The informant replied that a lot of
money was spent on the marriage on which the petitioner
Chanchal Rana said that the informant should obtain a loan from
the bank. The informant’s mother-in-law used to say that she
required a gold necklace on her 31 st marriage anniversary. She
taunted her by saying that girls gift gold KADA to their mother-
in-law but she had not gifted anything. The informant narrated
this incident to her husband and he asked her to comply with
these demands. When the informant expressed her inability to
meet the demands, she was abused by her husband. She was not
permitted to meet her husband on Karwachauth. She was also not
allowed to meet her parents. When the informant was unable to
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
4
meet the petitioner’s demands, a false complaint was made
against her before the Alternative Dispute Resolution, Una, H.P.
The petitioner Chanchal Rana left the matrimonial home after
.
making the complaint in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Una, H.P.
The petitioners said that they would get Chanchal Rana married
within 10 days. The informant was harassed mentally and
physically. She was asked to do household chores and to eat three
days-old vegetables. Her articles were misappropriated by her
parents-in-law.She was not permitted to take her clothes and
other articles. The matter was reported to the police, who
registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.
2. The petitioners filed the present petitions for quashing
the F.I.R. It was asserted that the F.I.R. filed by the informant is
just a counterblast to the legal notice issued by the petitioner
Chanchal Rana for divorcing the informant. The marriage
between the parties was not consummated due to the indifferent
attitudes of the informant. The petitioner took the informant to
her parental home so that she could be counselled but the
informant refused to cohabit with the petitioner. The petitioner
made a report to the District Legal Services Authority (Alternative
Dispute Resolution Centre) Una, H.P. The Secretary, District Legal
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
5
Services Authority, Una, called the informant on 03.11.2020.
However, the informant left her matrimonial home and went to
her parental home with all jewellery. She returned to her
.
matrimonial home on 06.11.2020 and took all her articles with
her. The conciliation proceedings continued before the District
Legal Services Authority Una, H.P. till February 2021 but the
situation did not improve. The petitioner Chanchal Rana issued a
notice to the informant as to why he should not file appropriate
proceedings for declaration of their marriage as nullity or divorce.
The petitioner Chanchal Rana withdrew the application on
04.09.2021. He filed a petition for seeking divorce and returned all
the informant’s jewellery on 05.02.2021. The informant filed a
false complaint against the petitioners on 17.02.2021. The
allegations in the F.I.R. are false because the informant had
submitted in the reply to the legal notice that she enjoyed every
function and the marriage ceremony till October 2020, which
shows that she was not subjected to any cruelty. The statement
made by the informant is false, which is apparent from the
comparison of the complaint and her statement made under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. is a counterblast to the
proceedings initiated by the petitioner’s husband. Therefore, it
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
6
was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the F.I.R. be
quashed.
.
3. The State has filed a reply making preliminary
submissions regarding lack of locus standi and the petitioners
having not come to the Court with clean hands. It was asserted
that the police conducted the investigation impartially and as per
the law. The police filed a chargesheet against Chanchal Rana
and Gurdial Singh for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC and against Rajinder Kaur for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406
of the IPC. The matter was listed for service on 26.03.2022.
Sufficient evidence was collected by the police to justify the filing
of the chargesheet. Hence, It was prayed that the present petition
be dismissed.
4. Rejoinders denying the contents of the replies and
affirming those of the petitions were filed.
5. I have heard Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Deputy
Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Rajesh
Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
7
6. Mr Kuldeep Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that a false F.I.R. was lodged by the
informant as a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by her
.
husband. The falsity of the F.I.R. is apparent from the
comparison of her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. with the
FIR. The continuation of the proceedings will amount to the
abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, it was prayed that the
present petition be allowed. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid
Another vs State of U.P. ors. in Criminal appeal No. 2340 of 2023
and judgment of this Court in Sanjay Sharma others Vs. State of
H.P. another, in CRMMO No. 360 of 2017, decided on 29th June
2022 in support of his submission.
7. Mr R.P. Singh learned Deputy Advocate General for
respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that the police conducted the
investigation and filed a charge sheet. The remedy of the
petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court and seek their
discharge. The present petitions are not maintainable; therefore,
he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
8
8. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 adopted the submissions of Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Deputy
Advocate General and prayed that the present petitions be
.
dismissed.
9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
10. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765:
(2023) 7 SCC 711 wherein it was observed at page 716:-
17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the
quashing of a charge/proceedings either in the exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or
together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of
this Court many a time. Reference to each and everyprecedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer
to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey ofalmost all the precedents on the point, the principles have
been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], this
Court laid down the following guiding principles : (SCC pp.
482-84, para 27)
“27. …27.1. Though there are no limits to 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 Code10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
9
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. 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 sucha conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may
interfere.
27.3. 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.
27.4. 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 loath to interfere, atthe threshold, to throttle the prosecution in the
exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in
force to the very initiation or institution andcontinuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar
is intended to provide specific protection to an
accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a
person and the right of the complainant or prosecution
to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to
be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith to10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
10
predominantly give rise to and constitute a “civil
wrong” with no “element of criminality” and does not
satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the
court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in.
such cases, the court would not embark upon
thecritical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,evidence and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction; the court is
concerned primarily with the allegations taken as awhole whether they will constitute an offence and, if
so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called
upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find
out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and
also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claimis maintainable, does not mean that a criminal
complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take
into consideration external materials given by anaccused for reaching the conclusion that no offence
was disclosed or that there was the possibility of his
acquittal. The Court has to consider the record anddocuments annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit a continuation of prosecution rather than its
quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected
to marshal the records with a view to deciding the10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
11
admissibility and reliability of the documents or
records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the chargesheet, reported under Section
173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal.
defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to an abuse ofprocess of the Code or that the interest of justice
favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power
is to be exercised ex debitojustitiaei.e. to do real and
substantial justice for administration of which alone,the courts exist.
27.16. These are the principles which individually and
preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise extraordinaryand wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code by the High Court. 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 ortwo ingredients have not been stated or do not appear
to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with
the requirements of the offence.”
11. Similar isthe judgment in Gulam Mustafa v. State of
Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603 wherein it was observed:-
26. Although we are not for verbosity in our judgments, a
slightly detailed survey of the judicial precedents is in
order. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, this Court held:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
12
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of.
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though
it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive listof myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if theyare taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collectedin support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
13
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
.
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to privateand personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and thattoo in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary orinherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. It was laid down in CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 379, that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The
allegations are required to be proved during the trial by leading
evidence. It was observed:
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
14
10. From the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court
was conducting a mini-trial and/or the High Court was.
considering the applications against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of
trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the
Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. The High
Court in the common impugned judgment and order has
observed that the charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where theprosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove
the charges. The charges are required to be proved during
the trial based on the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the HighCourt has materially erred in going into detail in the
allegations and the material collected during the course of
the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the
stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has very limitedjurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against
the accused for which the accused is required to be tried ornot”.
13. This position was reiterated in Abhishek v. State of M.P.
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, wherein it was observed:
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined.
In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568],
this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing
of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter
into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
15
allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021,
decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power.
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such
standard not being confused with the norm formulated inthe context of the death penalty. It was further observed
that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regardbeing had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. BhajanLal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
14. It is apparent from these judgments that power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of
process or secure the ends of justice. The Court can quash the
F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an offence or make out a
case against the accused. However, it is not permissible for it to
conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings.
15. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon various annexures to submit that the
present FIR has been filed as a counterblast to the divorce
petition filed by the petitioner’s husband. He also relied upon the
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
16
copy of the reply stated to have been filed by the informant before
the Court. These documents can not be seen at this stage. It was
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan
.
Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115, that the proceedings can
be quashed if on the face of the complaint and the papers
accompanying the same no offence is constituted. It is not
permissible to add or subtract anything. It was observed:
“10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only
if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanyingthe same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test
is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are,
without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is
made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing
the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482of the present Code.”
16. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram,
1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that the
fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the proceedings
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:
“Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed
to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari
filed a photostate copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passed
in Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to which the present
petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at this stage is
neither permissible nor desirable. The respondent by filing this
document is virtually introducing additional evidence, which is
not the object of Section 482, Cr.P.C.”
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
17
17. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view in
Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G. K.
Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
.
“9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the
documents filed along with it and the sworn statements ofthe witnesses if any recorded. While judging the correctness
of the proceedings, it cannot look into the documents,
which are not filed before the lower Court. Section 482
Cr.PC debars the Court to look into fresh documents, in
view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court inState of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another, 2002 (1)
Supreme 192. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads as follows:
“The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears that on consideration of the allegations, inthe light of the statement made on oath of the
complainant that the ingredients of the offence or
offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous orvexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court.
When information is lodged at the Police Station andan offence is registered, then the mala fides of the
informant would be of secondary importance. It isthe material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in Court, which decides the fate of the
accused person. The allegations of mala fidesagainst the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the
proceedings”.
18. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 wherein it was
observed at page 142:
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
18
“16. … the test to be applied is whether the allegations in
the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting
from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of
the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test.
the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it
proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial
would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the
course of the trial.”
19. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of
Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765wherein it was
held:
r to
13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely
on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial
but the same are not material at the stage of deciding
whether quashing as prayed for by her before the HighCourt was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reason to
place any reliance on these three documents.
20. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus
Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1258, wherein it was observed:
55. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction by
the High Courts under section 482, Cr. P.C., in a case where
the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to havenot been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a
prayer for quashing, is made, the law seems to be well settled
that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of
inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not
there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple
proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High
Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine
the High Courts’ powers saved by section 482, Cr. P.C.; such
powers are always available to be exercised ex debito10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
19
justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the High Courts exist.
However, the tests laid down for quashing an F.I.R. or
criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the.
High Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under
section 482, Cr. P.C. not being substantially different from
the tests laid down for quashing of a process issued under
section 204 read with section 200, the High Courts on
recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on
a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on
oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and
documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out
and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount
to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would be
impermissible if the justice of a given case does not
overwhelmingly so demand.” (Emphasis supplied)
21.
Therefore, it is not permissible to look into the
material filed by the petitioners with the petitions and the Court
has to rely upon the FIR and the report submitted by the police.
22. Secondly, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Aryan (supra) that the Court is not required to see
whether the FIR is malicious or not at the stage of quashing of FIR
and this is required to be seen at the time of conclusion of trial. It
was observed:
11. One other reason pointed out by the High Court is that
the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is
malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the
investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on
conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have
been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
20
in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be
considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered.
at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is
required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material
collected during the course of the investigation, which
warranted the accused to be tried. (Emphasis supplied)
23. The F.I.R. mentions that the petitioners had demanded
a dowry and harassed the informant for bringing insufficient
dowry. Petitioner Rajender Kaur said that the rooms of her house
were empty and the informant and her family members had not
provided sufficient dowry to fill the rooms. The informant was
harassed for bringing small vehicle. She was specifically asked to
bring a gold kada for Rajender Kaur. Rajender Kaur took the
informant’s ornaments by saying that the informant could take
them as and when needed. When the informant demanded the
ornaments these were not returned to her. These allegations
prima facie constitute the commission of offences punishable
under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 406 of IPC.
24. Mr Kuldeep Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the
petitioners read the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to demonstrate that there are
various discrepancies and contradictions due to which the
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
21
prosecution case cannot be relied upon. He contended that the
contradictions showed the falsity of the statements. It was laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.
.
Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1503 that the High
Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot
examine the truthfulness, sufficiency and admissibility of the
evidence. It was observed:
21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable
offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2)CrPC
on completion of investigation based on it would revealthat the ingredients to constitute an offence under
the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons
named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or
admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within
the purview of exercise of power under Section 482CrPCand undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the trial
court at the time of trial. This position is evident from the
decisions referred to supra.
22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita [M.L.
Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, (2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLine
SC 1300: JT (2002) 3 SC 89], this Court held that whileconsidering the question of quashing of FIR the High
Court would not be entitled to appreciate by way of siftingthe materials collected in course of investigation including
the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC.
23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev
Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51],
a two-judge Bench of this Court dealt with the question as
to the matters that could be considered by the High Court
in quashment proceedings under Section 482CrPC. It was
held therein that statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
22
could not be taken into consideration by the Court while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. In
that case, this Court took note of the fact that the High
Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that.
the deceased victim had informed him about the
harassment by the accused, which she was not able to bear
and hence wanted to commit suicide. Finding that the
conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminalproceedings, in that case, was on the basis of its
assessment of the statements recorded under Section
161CrPC, it was held that statements thereunder, being
wholly inadmissible in evidence could not have been taken
into consideration by the Court while adjudicating apetition filed under Section 482CrPC. It was also held that
the High Court committed an error in quashing the
proceedings by assessing the statements recorded under
Section 161CrPC.
25. In the present case, the charge sheet has been filed and
it is for the learned Trial Court to see the truthfulness or otherwise
of the allegations. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949
that when the charge sheet has been filed, learned Trial Court
should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:
“At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is
ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the
FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the
absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should
prefer a discharge application before the trial court under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We
say so because even according to the State, the
investigation is over and the chargesheet is ready to be10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
23
filed before the competent court. In such circumstances,
the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials
which the investigating officer might have collected
forming part of the chargesheet. If any such discharge.
application is filed, the trial court shall look into the
materials and take a call whether any case for discharge is
made out or not.”
26. In Mohammad Wajit’s case(supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had held that the contents of the F.I.R. were
inherently improbable, which is not the case. Hence, the cited
judgment does not apply to the present case.
27. In Sanjay Sharma’s case (supra), this Court held that
there was a delay of 7 years in reporting the matter to the police,
no specific allegations were made against the accused regarding
the cruelty on account of dowry and the case was not likely to end
up in conviction. In the present, the informant has specifically
mentioned that she was harassed because she had brought
insufficient dowry. Therefore, this judgment does not apply to the
present cases.
28. No other point was urged.
29. Therefore, there is no material to exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC. in the
present cases
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS
24
30. In view of the above, the present petitions cannot be
allowed and the same are dismissed.
.
31. The observation made hereinabove shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
10th January, 2024
(Ravinder)
10/01/2024 20:37:35 :::CIS