Reena Verma vs The State of U.P.

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet no. 54 of 2013 submitted by the police in the aforesaid case.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant has an alternative remedy for preferring criminal revision against the said order. The accused person had not challenged proceedings of aforesaid case before the revisional court and straightway approached this Court by moving an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is also that because of matrimonial dispute proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were initiated in retaliation of the same, the instant criminal proceedings have been initiated by the opposite parties.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Narain Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal and Others, has held that whether a case has been lodged in retaliation, which cannot be decided in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C., as it is a matter of trial. The question of fact can be decided only during trial.

Apart from it, the order of summoning is a revisable order as has been held by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Om Kr. Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, has held the revision against the summoning order is maintainable.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, has held as under:-

"It is well settled that the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (Vide Kavita Vs. State and Others, B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy."

In a very recent judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, has held that when an order not interlocutory in nature can be assailed in High Court in revisional jurisdiction, it should be a bar invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent powers of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It is well settled that inherent powers of the Court can be exercised when there is no express provision in the code under which order impugned can be challenged. In the same judgment, Hon''ble the Apex Court has further held that when there is a specific remedy provided by way of appeal or revision, the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or Section 151 C.P.C. cannot and should not be resorted to.

I have very carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and gone through the record.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press this application on merits and they confine their prayer only to the extent that necessary direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of bail.

The prayer being innocuous in nature is accepted.

The chargesheet has been filed after investigation which is based on the relevant materials. The chargesheet can be quashed only on limited ground which are absolutely lacking in the instant case, as such, no interference is required to quash the impugned proceedings.

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is provided that if the applicants surrender before the courts below within one month from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati & Anr Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2004 (57) ALR 290] as affirmed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .Till the period of one month, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants. This order shall not be treated as an implied direction of this Court to grant bail. The bail prayer shall be considered by the court concerned in accordance with law.