HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 9813 of 2008
Applicant :- Wasim Khan And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the applicants. However, Learned A.G.A.,is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present matter is arising out of incident took place in October, 2004 for which summoning order dated 26.08.2006 has been passed by C.J.M. Kaushambi. Sufficient time has already been elapsed since then. Proceedings pending before the court below is held up due to interim order dated 25.04.2008. It appears that no one is interested to get this matter decided because of protracted litigation, therefore, it is being decided in the absence of parties.
It evinces from the record that the marriage of applicant no.6 Rashida Khatoon and the opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 27.04.1997 but subsequently, they got strained relationship due to demand of dowry. The applicant no.6 had filed a Criminal Complaint no. 2769 of 2000 dated 17.10.2000 under Sections 498A/147/32/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the opposite party no. 2. In the aforesaid matter, summoning order dated 05.02.2001 was issued against the opposite party no.2, who filed Objection on 21.02.2002. The applicant no. 6 has also filed an application dated 08.04.2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2, registered as case No. 235 of 2002. As per version of the applicants, the aforesaid complaint is still pending. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that, in counter blast, opposite party no. 2 filed Criminal Complaint no. 3914 of 2004 on 19.11.2004 for incriminating the applicants herein. In support of the said complaint, Sabir Ali has deposed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Apart from that two witnesses,namely Abrar Ali and Kailash Maurya themselves deposed under Section 202 Cr.P.C.supporting the version of complaint. C.J.M. Kaushambi issued summoning order dated 26.08.2006 under Sections 147,323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi which has been challenged in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the applicants, making praying to quash the criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 3914 of 2004.
Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint dated 19.11.2004 alleging therein that after marriage, his wife, applicant no. 6, had shown apathy to live with her In-laws and and left her in -laws house with all her jewellery on 10.02.2002 on the pretext of attending the marriage of her brother . On 24.10.2004, all the applicants came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and used abusive language and thrashed the opposite party no.2 and vandalized his house and demanded goods and other valuable articles given in dowry.
In paragraph no.11, of the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that allegations levelled against the present applicant are false, concocted and fabricated. Neither any such incident took place , as alleged by the opposite party no. 2 in the complaint nor the applicants committed any offence. It is further stated that the present complaint is the counter blast of an application filed by the applicants under section 125 Cr.P.C.
Be that as it may, allegations made in the complaint required scrutiny in the light of evidence adduced by the parties. C.J.M. Kaushambi passed impugned summoning order dated 26.08.2006 after taking into consideration the contents of complaint and the statement deposed by the complainant as well as witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively.
In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyse the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is every specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Court is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.
The applicants have raised disputed question of fact with respect to the incident and submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants and the prosecution case initiated against them is with mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.
The defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any grounds congizable by the trial court, which might justify the quashing of the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding in question is hereby refused.
Accordingly, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020