HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 9071 of 2020
Applicant :- Shelendra And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rana
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Shelendra and Shri Rishipal, husband and father-in-law, with a prayer for setting aside chargesheet, dated 1.3.2019 and the cognizance taking order, dated 3.1.2020, of Case No.198 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.0871 of 2018, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 and 376 of IPC, Police Station- Medical College, District-Meerut.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that accused-applicants are innocent. Marriage was of year 2007. There is a decree of divorce of year 2015 and after four years, this case was filed with false accusation. No challenge of divorce decree was ever made. Opposite party no.2, being a practicing lawyer, is misusing her profession, thereby, falsely implicated applicants, whereas, no such offence was ever committed. There is variance in the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Seven persons were nominated, as accused, in the first information report, whereas, chargesheet was filed only against three persons. Hence, chargesheet and cognizance taking order has been passed in abuse of process of law. Therefore, for avoiding abuse of process of law and for securing ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.
Perusal of the first information report reveals that it was got lodged on 30.11.2018, for an offence of rape, committed at Revolver point and this was after the divorce decree was obtained by ex parte proceeding. This factum has been narrated in the statement, recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it is there. Ex parte decree of divorce was obtained, without giving any information to the wife, who was residing inside same premises with accused. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no evidence for filing of chargesheet. Apparently, there is a statement of informant-victim, reiterating contentions of the first information report. Other statements are also there. Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix because the same is to be seen by the Trial court.
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded “To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive” as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded “In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not”.Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 5.3.2020
bgs/
