AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:
FIR No.
Dated
Women Police Station
Sections
11/2018
28.8.2018
Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
498A, 354A 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC
Challenging the order dated 1.11.2018, taking cognizance of the offences, based on a police report filed, seeking prosecution under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; all the accused have come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the proceedings, by filing separate petitions as mentioned in the memo of parties.
The marriage between the victim and Sandeep Bhardwaj (A-3) was simonized on 6.5.2007. It was an arranged marriage. A son, currently around 12 years of age, was born to the victim and Sandeep Bhardwaj (A-3) from the marriage mentioned above.
The victim made a complaint addressed to the SHO of Women Police Station, BCS, Shimla. This case was entered in the said Police Station vide endorsement No.179/DCR/8/08/2018. The victim alleged cruelty and beatings on account of dowry. In the complaint, the victim alleged that the trouble started after around one year of her wedding that had taken place on 6.5.2007. It was an arranged marriage with Sandeep Bhardwaj (A-3), residing at Panchkula, Haryana. At the time of the wedding, the family of the boy lied to them and defrauded her. After the marriage, they started meeting mental and physical cruelty to her. She was turned out of her home on enormous occasions and would scuffle with her frequently. They also demanded dowry. At the time of her wedding, her father had given all those gifts which were justified. However, her in-laws were not mending their ways, and every day they were raising new demands. She stated that she had a son aged nine years, and now in connivance with her son, they wanted to remove her from the house. Geeta Bhardwaj (A-7), who is her sister-in-law (NANAD) along with her husband, Vinod Kashyap (A-4), another sister-in-law, Nishi Bhardwaj (A-6), her husband, Raj Singh (A-5), mother-in-law, Smt. Meena Bhardwaj (A-2) and her father-in-law, Shri Nanak Chand Bhardwaj (A-1), have connived with her husband Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj (A-3). She alleged that her sister-in-law's husband (NANDOI), Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4), did wrong acts with her on enormous occasions. She complained about this to her husband, but he kept mum and did not take any action. Her husband even did not bring this fact to the notice of his parents. Geeta Bhardwaj (A- 7) leveled false allegations against her and her sister-in-law, Geeta Bhardwaj (A-7), in connivance with her mother-in-law, Meena Bhardwaj (A-2), gave beatings to her. She stated that all these people are involved. After that, the victim alleged that all these people had caused so much cruelty to her and her son that she was forced to take medicines. To earn her livelihood, she was doing a private job, but she had to leave that job, and now she was shifted to her matrimonial home. Due to this, the study of her child was stopped in between. The victim prayed that maintenance is given to her and her son. She clarified that she did not want to compromise with these people because even earlier, they had played fraud with her, and as such, she wanted those people to be prosecuted. She further alleged that her brother-in-law (NANDOI) and sister-in-law (NANAD) kept threatening her on enormous occasions by saying that they had a lot of money and she could not do anything to them. They also threatened her and her son's life. Despite having her own home, she was thrown away from there. After that, the complainant mentioned the names and phone numbers of those people.
Since the victim had leveled allegations of immoral acts against Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4), on 24.8.2018, the Investigator got her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC from the Court of learned JMFC-VI, Shimla. In the said statement, she reiterated the allegations which she had mentioned in the complaint. Apart from the specific allegations which were mentioned in the complaint, she made the following additional allegations:-
(a) At the time of her wedding, her father had given her Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which she had spent Rs.1,00,000/- for buying personal things, and the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- was taken by her mother-in-law, Meena Bhardwaj from her.
(b) After her wedding, her mother-in-law, Meena Bhardwaj, and sister-in-law, Geeta Bhardwaj, taunted her by saying that many dowries come in the marriage, but she did not bring anything.
(c) At the time of the wedding, her in-laws' family projected that her husband, Sandeep Bhardwaj, runs a truck. However, after the wedding, she realized that he was unemployed and was also addicted to various drugs and intoxication.
(d) Her delivery had taken place in her maternal home, and her parents had spent the entire money for her delivery.
(e) When her child was of three months, she came to her in-law's house as there was a compromise between them, and her husband, Sandeep Bhardwaj, had come to take her back.
(f) When she reached her in-laws, her sister-in-law Nishi, Geeta Bhardwaj, and her mother-in-law, Meena Bhardwaj, demanded gold from her because she had given birth to a male child.
(g) Her brother-in-law, Raj Singh (Nandoi), threatened her to do away with her life and proclaimed that he had lots of money and that she could not do anything to them.
(h) On enormous occasions, her brother-in-law (Nandoi), Vinod Kumar, husband of Geeta Bhardwaj, used to molest her, and she had also told about this molestation to her husband, Sandeep Bhardwaj.
(i) All these persons would regularly abuse her.
(j) They had separated her by giving a room to her.
(k) They forced her to do job by saying that she kept on staying idle at home.
(l) After that she started doing part time job at a Clinic.
(m) In June 2018, when she went to her in-laws, they handed over an electricity bill of Rs.7,900/- of the room and kitchen she was using. When she told her about the electricity bill to her husband, he told her to make its payment.
(n) Her husband would take liquor daily. One day, under intoxication, he gave beatings to her and threw her mobile phone, and its screen broke.
(o) Her husband is a school bus driver, and once when she went to work, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, Geeta Bhardwaj, gave beatings to her, and it happened after the electricity bill in June 2018.
(p) Regarding the electricity bill, the family called her Nandoi, Vinod Kumar Kashyap, and sister-in-law (Nanand), Nishi, and all of them sided with each other and abused her.
(q) After that, the family organized a meeting and separated her husband from all ancestral property. It was done to deprive her of their property rights. Subsequently, they made an advertisement on 21.6.2018 in the newspaper about disowning property.
(r) After that, her husband forced her to go to rented accommodation. When she told her husband that he should talk to his parents about his being disowned by his father, he convinced her that they were the owners and could do whatever they wanted.
(s) When she doubted her husband's involvement with his parents, she downloaded a call recorder app on his phone, and when she heard those recorded calls, she came to know that her husband was also conspiring with all others and was on their side.
(t) After that, on 6th August, she made DDR entry in Sector-14, Police Station, Panchkula, and returned to her matrimonial home along with her father.
(u) She also stated that she came without any belongings, and her gold chain and gold ring are lying behind.
After that, the police also recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC. She mentioned the details of dowry items given to her by her father during the wedding like washing machine, fridge, TV with its trolley, etc. The Investigator also recorded the statement of Shri Jiya Lal, father of the victim and Smt. Lata Devi, mother of the victim.
After completing the investigation, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station launched prosecution against the accused by filing a report under Section 173 (2) CrPC. Based on this report, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Shimla, took cognizance and issued summons against all accused.
Aggrieved by such summoning, all the accused came up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC by filing the petitions captioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Court files and the pleadings.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
The allegations against all the accused are general in nature and non-specific. The specific allegations have been leveled against the following accused. It has been mentioned explicitly against accused Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4) that when she was staying in Panchkula, he would continue to molest her. The victim reiterated her allegations in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Thus, as far as an offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is specific only against Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4) and none else. Given the allegations of sexual molestation leveled by the victim, there is nothing for this Court to disbelieve her testimony qua this fact.
The allegations of physical and mental torture of the complainant are general, that took place long back, in her in-law's house at Panchkula, Haryana.
The complaint, First Information Report, the material collected during the investigation, the outcome of the investigation as found in the Charge Sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against any of the accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506, read with 34 of the IPC.
The complainant had alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given her Rs. Two lacs in cash. Out of this fund, she spent Rs. One lac on personal expenditure, whereas her Mother-in-law (A-2), Meena Bhardwaj, had taken Rs. One Lac from her. The daughter-in-law had levelled this allegation for the first time in her complaint on 8-8-2018, whereas the marriage was solemnized on 6-5-2007. Thus, this allegation was made for the first time after eleven years. Even the Investigator did not find this belated allegation to make out any prima facie case under S. 406 IPC and the Officer-in-charge of the Police station did not launch prosecution for the offence of breach of trust, punishable under section 406 IPC.
There is not even a single allegation of cruelty or criminal intimidation meted out in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, that the allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion, and the complainant did not properly visualize the implications and consequences that could lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations, apply to the present facts and circumstances.
The following observations on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, aptly apply to the facts of the present case the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A against the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names, FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused especially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be a clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course, the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife.
The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 260, that in matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple and if the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is an abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed, apply to the present facts and circumstances on all fours.
Similar to the facts of Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413, even in this case, the allegations are blurred, and the complainant cited the incidents of unhappiness with her husband.
The uncontroverted allegations neither disclose the commission of the offence alleged nor make a case to make them face criminal trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 of the IPC.
No useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the petitioners.
Given above, the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not commit any error in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code against accused Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4). This Court is also not inclined to interfere in taking cognizance and issuing summons for an offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code as far as it relates against Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4). Although prima facie, it appears that such molestation had taken place in Panchkula, i.e., out of territorial jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh. Still, there are no specific allegations to rule out that such an incident had not occurred at the matrimonial house.
However, the investigation is not complete whether any act of molestation occurred when the victim had visited her matrimonial house, and even the accused, Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4), and his wife were also there. Needless to say, that the Investigator had all the rights to carry on further investigation and file supplementary Challan.Even if no offence was committed outside the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh or the jurisdiction of the Police Station, the remedy still does not lie in quashing of FIR and taking cognizance. Still, there are so many provisions to rectify these irregularities. Indeed, the prosecution will not fail on these irregularities, but the issue of jurisdiction can be adequately addressed by transferring the FIR at any stage.
Given above, the petition being CrMMO No.604 of 2018 filed by Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4) for seeking quashing of FIR for offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is dismissed.
However, the other allegations are for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which are common in nature and, as such, are being taken up simultaneously. The allegations leveled against all the other accused are general. The allegations of lying regarding the education of Sandeep Bhardwaj, lesser dowry, and the accused not owning the truck pertain to the year 2007. A perusal of the complaint shows that the victim explicitly stated that the cruelty started after one year of marriage, i.e., somewhere in the year 2008. She filed a complaint about all these facts after 11 years. Furthermore, these allegations are void, blurred, and opaque.
As far as the allegations regarding payment of electricity bill of Rs.7,900/- is concerned, the victim specifically mentioned in her statement under Section 154 CrPC that it pertained to the room and the kitchen, which was given to her after separation. When she brought it to the notice of her husband, he asked her to pay the same. Even otherwise, the victim was working part-time, and the electricity pertained to her room. She and her husband were grown-up adults, and it was their responsibility to pay the bill and none else. The allegations that on this issue, her sister-in-law and brother-in-law sided with each other are too general to make offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation that is knowing her husband's involvement with his parents, she had installed a call recording app in his mobile and when she heard the call recordings that confirmed her doubts, is again meaningless. This was neither mentioned in the FIR nor was any such evidence collected by the prosecution.
The allegation regarding the demand for gold at the time of birth of her son by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law pertains somewhere to the year 2009. After demand, the victim is silent that did her parents give them gold or not. Even if her father had given her the gold, she would have mentioned this fact. She did not state that due to non-giving of gold, any accused subjected her to any cruelty.
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[13] The main question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case ?
[14]This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
[15] Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys [1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.
[18] The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.
[32] It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
[33] The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
[34] Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
[35] The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
[36]Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[24] In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in the case of Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738] that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to prolong the controversy. The facts in this matter on this aspect was although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.
[25] However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
[28] We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled.
In Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 260, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[10] The Law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not made out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the Court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter version. In matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple.
In Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[6] It is by now well settled that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the First Information Report/the complaint or the outcome of investigation as found in the Charge Sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused; where the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged; where the uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint and the material collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of offence alleged and make out a case against the accused; 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 private and personal grudge, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised.
[7] While exercising power under Section 482 or under Article 226 in such matters, the court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully or with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down under Section 482 itself. It is to be exercised ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone courts exist. The court must be careful and see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.
[8] We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of I.P.C. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.
[9] The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the charge sheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as contained in Section 405 of the I.P.C. In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants. This is a case where there is a total absence of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 of the I.P.C. In the matter on hand, the allegations made in the First Information Report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the I.P.C. against the accused/appellants. So also the uncontroverted allegations found against the appellants do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out a case against the accused. The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed.
CONCLUSION:
This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter, and such powers can always be exercised, depending upon the facts and circumstances.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated.
Given above, the order dated 1.11.2018, taking cognizance of the offences by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are quashed against all the accused and all the consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of all the accused are accordingly discharged, except Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4). All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
As far as offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code against accused Vinod Kumar Kashyap (A-4), is concerned, this Court neither finds prima facie case for quashing nor on the ground of jurisdictional issue, FIR can be quashed because this irregularity can always be cured by taking appropriate legal steps which the Investigator and Courts are always legally empowered to do.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to these cases, the petitions are closed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, are also closed.