AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 662 of 2003, under sections 420/ 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Rajpur, District- Kanpur Dehat (Noore @ Noor Hasan vs. Multan and others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Bhaganipur, Kanpur Dehat.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
Submission of the applicants' counsel is that the complaint in question has been lodged with express mala fides only in order to add harassment to the applicants and in order to add coercive pressure upon the applicants not to pursue the matter against the opposite party which it was facing. It was pointed out that applicant no.4, Anwar Jahan was married to one Mohammad Obaid, son of opposite party no.2. Anwar Jahan was very badly treated by her husband and in-laws and because of the same a case under section 498A etc. had to be filed. Apart from this a case of refusal to maintain her under section 125 Cr.P.C. was also brought in the Court on behalf of applicant no.4, Anwar Jahan. Submission is that the proceedings of 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 16.4.2002 while the case under section 498A etc. was brought against the opposite party no.2 on 1.10.2002. Reliance in this regard was placed on Annexure No.1 and 2 of the application which are the copies of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and complaint filed against the husband side. Further submission is that a lot of pressure was exercised upon the applicants that they should not pursue the matter and should enter into compromise but as Anwar Jahan was subjected to enormous cruelty the applicants did not buckle down and decided to pursue the matter against husband side against all odds. Indignated by the same the opposite party has used the present complaint case as an arm twisting device out of ire and vengeance. Submission is that malice behind the complaint is apparent on the face of record and in view of the Apex Court's decision given in Bhajanlal's case, the proceedings against applicants ought to be quashed in the wake of mala fides which are demonstrable in this case. The improbability of the allegations and the story given out in the complaint was also emphasized by the counsel. It has also been pointed out that the alleged jewellery said to have been taken away by Anwar Jahan was her own streedhan as per the allegations made in the complaint and it would hardly constitute any offence if she took it.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Notice on the opposite party was served but nobody is present on his behalf. The perusal of the complaint shows that so far as the jewellery part which is said to have been taken away by Anwar Jahan is concerned it is said to have been given to her in Chadhava which is a convention prevalent in Hindus whereby gifts in the form of jewellery are given to the daughter-in-law when she contracts marriage. Just as the parents give gifts to the daughter, the in-laws also confer gifts as Chadhava to the daughter-in-law. Therefore so far as the jewellery part which is said to have been taken away by Anwar Jahan is concerned, there appears substance in the submission made by the counsel in that regard and even if for the sake of argument it is taken to be true that she took away certain jewelleries with her they are according to the allegations of complaint in the nature of Chadhava which will be tantamount to her own streedhan. Therefore so far as that part of allegation is concerned it shall hardly constitute any offence. So far as the other allegations regarding amount of Rs.25,000/- having been taken away by wife is concerned the allegation appears to be not very convincing or palatable. There does not appear to be any good reason as to why the husband would put Rs.25,000/- in the suitcase of the wife and not in his own. If the relationship of husband and wife were cordial and if there was no dispute in between them and if the relationship were normal then it might be easily believed that a husband may put the cash in the suitcase of the wife. But in the wake of the bitterness which existed in between the two and in the wake of the background which is discernible from record that there was hardly any love lost between the couple though they lived together under the same roof, such kind of allegation that a sufficient by big amount of cash was put not in the suitcase of the husband or the parents but was put in the suitcase of the embittered and hostile wife does not appear to be a very probable claim of complainant and this Court would take such kind of allegation only with a pinch of salt. At any rate filing of the present complaint was done when already the criminal litigation against opposite party had started at the initiation of applicant's side, the refusal of the husband to maintain his wife having resulted in filing of the maintenance suit under section 125 Cr.P.C. while the ill-treatment that was meted out to the wife had prompted her to get the process of law started against husband and other in-laws. The factum of the the initiation of these criminal proceedings against the husband side is a proven fact and is not a matter of dispute and therefore the submission made by the counsel in this regard that the present complaint with such kind of improbable allegations was prompted by nothing except malice appears to have substance. It is not difficult to see through the oblique motive which inspired the filing of the complaint and it is not difficult to infer that motives out of ire and vengeance and mala fides are at the back of initiation of these proceedings under challenge.
In this regard it may be useful to keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-
"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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 list of 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 they are 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 F.I.R. 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 collected in 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 prudent 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 specific provision 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 private and personal grudge."
In the considered view of this Court this matter falls in category no.(7) mentioned hereinabove. This Court finds reason to hold that the complaint in question is inspired by malice and the version contained therein is full of high improbabilities and the continuation of the proceedings on that basis is likely to result in abuse of court's process, and therefore, the entire proceeding of complaint in question is liable to be quashed.
In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the entire proceedings of complaint in question against the accused-applicants stand quashed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.