AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
By means of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing the order dated 19.01.2015 along with summoning order dated 23.09.2013 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1404 of 2013, ‘State vs. Gopal Sharma and Others’ pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
The facts as narrated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application are as follows:
The applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law, applicant no. 3 is brother-in-law and applicant no. 4 is husband of respondent no. 2. The marriage of the son of applicant no. 4 was solemnized in the year 2005. On the instigation of the father of respondent no. 2, Rishi Ram Pradhan, the applicant no. 1 gave a huge amount to son-in-law of Rishi Ram Pradhan, namely Lalit Sharma, who did not return the same in the next 5 years despite several requests of the applicants. However, due to that, the relation of the respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 4 became bitter. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before Mahila Helpline, Jwalapur for dowry harassment.
In the said complaint, the police did the investigation and found that nothing has been found regarding dowry harassment, however the background of dispute is the aforesaid money transaction. Prior to that, the applicant no. 2 also filed an application before Mahila Helpline, Jwalapur on 24.06.2012. On 23.09.2012, the respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR against the applicants and another, alleging therein that the accused persons were harassing her on account of non-fulfillment of their dowry demand along with false medical report.
In the FIR, the main facts alleged are that the marriage of the respondent no. 2 and the applicant no. 4 was solemnized on 29.04.2005. Thereafter, there was harassment for dowry demand by the accused persons. On 05.02.2006, the informant/respondent no. 2 gave birth to a male child. On 23.06.2012, the accused persons committed maar-peet with the informant/ respondent no. 2 and harassed her for dowry and raised dowry demands. She was rescued by her brother. The medical examination of the informant/respondent no. 2 was conducted in the hospital.
In pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, investigation ensued and culminated in filing of a charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 24.10.2012. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, vide order dated 23.09.2013, took cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicants to stand trial. The applicants challenged the said summoning order before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, however, the Revisional Court dismissed the said revision as not maintainable.
Assailing the charge sheet and summoning order, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that before the FIR was lodged, the matter was sent to the Mahila Helpline.
Learned counsel for the applicant would refer to the report of the Mahila Helpline wherein it is also mentioned – “okrkZyki ds nkSjku ngst lEcU/kh dksbZ rF; lkeus ugha vk;s nksuksa i{kksa dk vkil esa iSalks dk ysunsu dk ekeyk gSA xksiky “kekZ viuh iRuh dks j[kus dks rS;kj gS vkilh jaft”k ds dkj.k iwtk “kekZ ds ekrk firk viuh yM+dh dks mlds llqjky ugha Hkstuk pkgrs gSaA”
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the report of the Mahila Helpline itself, it has been stated that the husband has all along been ready to take the wife. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in respect of the incident of 23.06.2012 of assault and subjecting the informant/ respondent no. 2 for dowry harassment, there have been judicial findings that there has been no harassment for dowry demand by husband in all those proceedings. He would refer to the judgment rendered in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment rendered in proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce instituted by the wife. However, the said divorce proceedings culminated in dismissal of the divorce suit and on findings on issue no. 1 pertaining to cruelty, the learned Family Court, while referring to the cross-examination of the informant/ respondent no. 2, has held that the respondent no. 2/informant could not prove the allegations of maarpeet and the incident of 23.06.2012, and hence the issue no. 1 regarding cruelty has been decided against the wife/respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the statements of the respondent no. 2 wherein she has admitted that these statements have been given by her on legal advice.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arti Mehta and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, and has placed reliance upon para nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the said judgment, and has vehemently argued that in matters pertaining to Section 498A, there has been a tendency to rope in the entire family members and in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated this practice of roping in the entire family members. However, he would very fairly submit that in the case of Arti Mehta (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered in the matter with respect to the husband. Para nos. 41, 42, 43 & 44 are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“41.It is further required to be stated that the invocation of the criminal process is not a matter of course. The coercive machinery of criminal law carries serious civil and personal consequences and, therefore, can be legitimately set in motion only where the allegations disclose specific acts constituting offences punishable under the penal law. This principle assumes even greater significance in cases arising out of matrimonial and domestic discord. Family relationships are founded upon emotional bonds, mutual trust, affection and shared responsibilities, and cannot be viewed through the same lens as ordinary commercial, civil disputes or criminal cases. It is not uncommon that when matrimonial relationships deteriorate, allegations are made in the heat of emotional turmoil and bitterness, often resulting in the entire family of the spouse being drawn into criminal litigation. However, criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument for venting personal grievances or settling familial scores in the absence of clear, specific and legally sustainable allegations. Courts must therefore exercise a heightened degree of caution and judicial scrutiny before permitting criminal prosecution against relatives who are sought to be implicated merely by virtue of their relationship with the spouse.
42.At the same time, this Court is equally conscious of the reality that genuine cases of cruelty and domestic violence do occur within the confines of the matrimonial home and often remain concealed from public gaze. Acts of emotional, verbal, economic or physical abuse within the domestic sphere may not always leave behind readily available evidence or independent witnesses, and the absence of such evidence at the threshold cannot by itself be a ground to disbelieve a victim. It is precisely to address this social evil that legislations such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the penal provisions relating to cruelty and dowry harassment have been enacted with wide amplitude and protective intent. The object of such statutes is to ensure meaningful legal protection to women subjected to domestic abuse and harassment within the matrimonial home.
43.However, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of paramount importance, courts are simultaneously required to ensure that the rigours of criminal law are not indiscriminately extended to every member of the family without a clear factual foundation. In prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused must be specific, distinct and supported by prima facie material indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry. Mere allegations that family members “supported” the husband, failed to intervene, or advised the complainant to adjust in the matrimonial relationship, without anything further, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability. There may indeed be situations where certain relatives remain passive spectators or fail to come to the aid of the complainant; however, such conduct, though morally questionable, cannot automatically be elevated to the status of criminal culpability unless the surrounding circumstances clearly disclose their active complicity or participation in the alleged offences.
44.It must therefore be emphasised that each case arising out of matrimonial discord or allegations of domestic violence must necessarily turn on its own peculiar facts and the nature of allegations levelled against the accused concerned. The observations made herein should not be construed to mean that relatives of the husband can never be prosecuted under the relevant penal provisions. Where the material on record discloses specific overt acts, active participation, or direct involvement in perpetrating cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, such relatives would undoubtedly be liable to face prosecution in accordance with the law. What the Court is required to carefully examine is whether the allegations are genuine, specific and supported by foundational facts, or whether they are merely a consequence of matrimonial acrimony resulting in sweeping and omnibus implication of all family members. In the absence of such specific allegations and prima facie material, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 130, and has drawn the attention of the Court to para nos. 22, 23 and 25 thereof, and on the basis of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that since the finding with regard to cruelty, etc., in civil proceedings has been returned in favour of the applicants, and criminal proceedings require a higher degree of proof, therefore, where the finding with regard to cruelty has been returned in favour of the husband, hence the criminal proceedings with respect to the self same allegations cannot be sustained in criminal proceedings where the degree of proof would be on a higher pedestal. Relevant para nos. 23 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain (Supra) are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-
“23.In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC 1: 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , this Court noticed that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of report of the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission. The criminal case was pending since long, in spite of the fact that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding for same charge.
25.Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR. It was alleged that as per CAG Inquiry Report dated 15-12-2008 Rs 4,39,617 has been misappropriated by the appellant, all the copies of original bills and documents are available in the Office of CAG and the original documents are available in the Office of the Directorate, State Literacy Programme.”
Learned counsel for the applicants would further doubt the medical examination report of the respondent no. 2 and would submit that the respondent no. 2 has different versions regarding the medical examination report as to who took her for the medical examination report, though on the face of it, the medical examination report states B/B-self- i.e. "brought by self".
Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST. Rehana Begum vs. State of Assam and Another reported in (2022) 17 SCC 722 and has relied upon paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment. Paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are being extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“16.The precedent of this Court clarifies that in certain circumstances, the High Court is entitled to consider other materials before exercising its powers of quashing under Section 482CrPC.
17.In the present case the appellant and the second respondent were parties to the decision of the Family Court. No contentious material or disputed issues of evidence arise. In the above backdrop, allowing the criminal proceeding to proceed for an offence under Sections 494 and 495IPC would constitute an abuse of the process.
18.As between the appellant and the second respondent the issue as to whether she had a subsisting marriage on the date on which she entered into a marriage with the second respondent is the subject-matter of a conclusive finding of the Principal Judge of the Family Court which has attained finality. Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 expressly confers the Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of a person. Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a Family Court with the status of a District Court and Section 7(2) confers it with jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX CrPC, thus enabling to collect evidence to make such a determination. Thus, relying on the judgment of the Family Court which has jurisdiction to decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in the criminal complaint, would not be same as relying on evidentiary materials that are due for appreciation by the trial court, such as the investigation report before it is forwarded to the Magistrate.”
Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 and in particular has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph nos.18, 20 & 23 of the said judgment are being extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“18.The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found.
20.It would be appropriate to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal 5199 of 2024 titled as Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana4. This court dealt with the ingredients of Section 498-A and whether the same are attracted through vague allegations raised by the complainant (wife). It was observed that:
“17.The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
18.A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No. 1 harassed her and that appellant Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
19.Further, the record reveals that respondent No. 2 on 03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house leading appellant No. 1 to file a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No. 1. In the said letter, respondent No. 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No. 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that appellant No. 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, respondent No. 2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No. 1 and also her minor children.
20.Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No. 1 issued a legal notice to respondent No. 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No. 1, respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
21.Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No. 1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No. 1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No. 1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No. 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members.
22.Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing respondent No. 2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus.
23.Respondent No. 2 has not contested the present case either before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that respondent No. 2 has not only deserted appellant No. 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of appellant No. 1. The counsel for the appellants has specifically submitted that respondent No. 2 has shown no inclination to reestablish any relationship with her children. …….
25.A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.”
23.Hence, it was clear that ‘cruelty’ is not enough to constitute the offence. It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of any such allegations. The only allegation that referred to an injury being inflicted against the complainant is a vague statement that the son of the appellants herein used to beat her, but there is no specific allegation of any such injury being caused by the appellants herein.”
While relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that in the judgments cited on behalf of the applicants, the cases were also, inter alia, under Section 498A of the IPC and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings.
Learned counsel for the applicants would thus conclude by submitting that from a bare perusal of the report of the Mahila Helpline, the dispute between the parties was only pertaining to some monetary transactions and no facts concerning dowry have come to light. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that since there is no allegation regarding demand for dowry, hence the FIR allegations are made after much thought and consideration, and no reliance can be placed upon the same. It is further submitted that prior to the FIR, there is no prior complaint. The allegations as contained in the FIR are a totally concocted story and no reliance can be placed upon the same and he would submit that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the charge-sheet and the summoning order deserve to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. P.K. Chauhan, would submit that the incident is corroborated by medical evidence. Section 307 IPC was dropped in the investigation, therefore it would be deemed that the investigation was not mechanical. He would further submit that the documents annexed on behalf of the applicants along with the supplementary affidavit are post the lodging of the FIR and any subsequent proceedings which have taken place after the incident will not have any bearing on the investigation. He would further submit that in the case of Arti Mehta (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the case of the husband. He would further submit that the FIR is prompt and thereafter coupled with medical examination report and charge sheet. Based on the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken on the material available before the record. He would thus submit that disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it is the sole domain of the Trial Court to enter into the factual arena. He would also submit that the case needs to be decided on its own evidence and facts.
Learned AGA for the State would draw the attention of the Court to statements of the informant under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and he would submit that the respondent no. 2/informant has supported the prosecution case. He has also referred to the medical examination report of the respondent no. 2 and he would submit that the medical examination report also corroborates the prosecution case. Medical examination of the respondent no.2 has been conducted on the very next day of the incident. There is no delay on account of the matter being a matrimonial dispute.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On one hand, learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that when the dispute between the parties travelled to the Mahila Helpline and when the conciliation proceedings were conducted before the Mahila Helpline, no fact regarding the dowry demand etc. came to light and the report was submitted by the Mahila Helpline wherein dispute between the parties appears to be some monetary transactions.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also stressed that in the prior proceedings between the parties, there have been judicial findings that there has been no harassment for dowry demand by husband.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that in the divorce proceedings, which were instituted by the wife, the issue no.1 regarding cruelty has been decided against the wife/respondent. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arti Mehta (Supra), Digambar and another (Supra) and MST. Rehana Begum (Supra) and has submitted that in all those judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has proceeded to quash the proceedings emanating out of Section 498A IPC.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/informant has submitted that the incident is corroborated by medical evidence. He has also pointed out that the FIR is prompt and is also coupled with the medical examination report and on the basis of which charge sheet, cognizance has been taken.
The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the respondent no.2/informant has supported the prosecution case. The medical examination report also corroborates the prosecution case.
Now the question that falls for determination of this Court is whether in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, where there is specific allegation in the FIR against the applicants regarding dowry demand, abuse and also commission of maarpeet by the applicants, whether it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings or not.
The judgments cited on behalf of the applicants by the learned counsel for the applicants, though pertain to offences interalia under Section 498A of the IPC; however, upon a closer scrutiny of all those judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as the factual matrix of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are different.
In the present case, there are specific allegations of demand of dowry with date and timing i.e. 23.06.2012 and also the allegations of maarpeet are of 6:30 PM. The said allegations of maarpeet at 6:30 PM are duly corroborated by the medical examination report dated 23.06.2012, in which injuries have been found in the medical examination report, and in the opinion of the Medical Officer of Harmilap Mission District Hospital, Haridwar, the injuries are said to be caused by hard and blunt object. In fact, injury no.2 has been kept under observation and advised X-ray and the duration is stated to be fresh.
In such a factual backdrop of the case, the submissions as made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the State that disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. appear to be more acceptable.
In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, and paragraph nos. 14 and 15 thereof are relevant, which are being extracted hereunder for ready reference :
“14.From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.
15.The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra [Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286] , the parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him. This Court found no cogent material against the other accused. In Manoj Mahavir [Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar, (2010) 10 SCC 673 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier Section 498-A IPC case. This Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] , case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.”
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the question whether the applicant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial, but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out, thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.
After considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, and particularly in view of the fact that in the present case there is a medical examination report duly corroborating the allegations as levelled in the FIR, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for quashing of proceedings at this stage.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the matter needs to be dealt with by the trial court. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this judgment would not affect the trial court and the trial court will decide the case on its own merit.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any scope for interference and with the aforesaid observations, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.