Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sarika Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. … on 26 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC-LKO:16937
Court No. – 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1577 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Sarika Sharma And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwer Dhananjay Singh,Deepshikha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Kunwer Dhananjay Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 18.07.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 73538/ 2023, Pallav Bhatt v. Sarika Sharma Ors, pending before Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.
3. The opposite party no. 2 is the husband of the applicant no. 1 and he has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that he got married to the applicant no. 1 on 11.12.2020; because of family disputes, the applicant no. 1 left the matrimonial home without informing anyone in July, 2022; the opposite party no. 2 filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 16.08.2022 but thereafter with the intervention of some relatives, he withdrew the suit and took his wife and daughter to his home at Lucknow. After sometime, on 05.03.2023 the applicant no. 1 again left her matrimonial home without informing any person and she took away all the ancestral jewelry with her and thereafter she demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- for returning the jewelry. On 01.05.2023, the opposite party no. 2 met the applicant nos. 2 3 at a dhaba near KIA showroom in Sarojini Nagar Industrial Area where the applicant no. 2 threatened him and the applicant no. 3 hurt him, pushed him on the ground and abused and threatened him.
4. The Magistrate registered the application as a complaint, recorded the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of his father under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants to face the trial.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that because of the matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2, the complaint has been filed on false allegations. The applicant no. 1 and her daughter have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and an application under Section 12D of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and she had also filed an FIR No. 158 of 2023 on 12.06.2023. A Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10134 of 2023 was filed for quashing of the FIR lodged by the applicant no. 1, in which the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre by means of an order dated 17.07.2023. In the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, it is recorded that the matter has been referred to the Mediation Centre twice – on the first occasion the same was not successful and on the second occasion the husband did not appear before the Mediation Centre. After perusal of the averments made in the FIR, this Court found that the FIR prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the FIR was rejected. In the present case also, the allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie reveal commission of offences and, therefore, there is no good ground for quashing of the complaint.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murati Shukla v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2788 of 2023 decided on 12.09.2023 in support of his contention that the criminal proceedings instituted as a counterblast action, are liable to be quashed. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that the applicant’s daughter was married to the respondent no. 2 and a complaint under Section 498A, 323, 506, 330, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act had been filed against respondent no. 2. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 filed an FIR alleging that on 27.08.2019, when he was returning after hearing of a case filed against him, three unknown persons on the strength of their illegal weapon has stopped the complainant, abused him and asked him to withdraw the case.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-
“We are conscious that normally the power under Section 482, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly but the very sequence of events stated herein in the complaint case filed makes it quite obvious that almost an unbelievable story has been made to somehow create a case under Section 392 IPC as a counter blast to the proceedings pending against the respondent no. 2.”
8. The aforesaid order was passed in light of the peculiar facts of that case, wherein there was an unsubstantiated allegation of threatening by three unknown persons. In the present case, there are categorical allegations against the applicants. Even in Ram Murati Shukla (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that normally the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.
10. When the allegations levelled in the complaint clearly make out commission of offences by the applicants and the complaint allegations are supported by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his father under Section 202 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot hold a mini trial to examine the correctness of the allegations and that has to be done by the trial court after the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence.
11. There is no good ground for quashing of the proceedings without holding any trial.
12. The application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2024
Pradeep/-
