AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
This application takes exception to the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 182 of 2017 dated 03.06.2017 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Shirpur City Police Station, Shirpur.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the allegations in the F.I.R. and submits that, so far as present applicants are concerned, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. as against them are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the alleged offences have not been disclosed against them. Therefore, he submits that the application deserves to be allowed.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 relying upon the contents of the F.I.R. and averments in the affidavit in reply jointly submit that, if the contents are carefully perused the alleged offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. is disclosed, therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. may not be favourably considered.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. We have also carefully perused the allegations in the F.I.R. as against the present applicants.
The relevant passages wherein the allegations in the F.I.R. as against the applicants are mentioned are as under: "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Upon careful perusal of the allegations re-produced hereinabove from the F.I.R., the said allegations against the applicants are omnibus, vague and general in nature and do not disclose any specific offence as such. Though, the incident dated 17.05.2017 is quoted, so far as actual demand is concerned, it is alleged that husband demanded Rupees Ten Lakhs. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations as against the applicants in the F.I.R. and also the fact that the applicants are residing at Shirpur and the matrimonial home is situated at Ahmedabad which is approximately 400 kms away from Shirpur, we are of the opinion that the allegations made against the applicants are absurd.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 held that, in following categories the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R.
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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.
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.
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.
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.
Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.
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.
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.
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 case of the applicants would be covered under category nos.1 and 5 of the categories mentioned herein-above.
The Supreme Court in another judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband''s family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial. In the said judgment, there is also reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein para 12 it is observed thus:
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ''young'' days in chasing their ''cases'' in different courts."
In the light of discussion herein-above, the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 182 of 2017 dated 03.06.2017 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed qua the applicants. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The application is disposed of accordingly.
The observations made herein-above are prima facie in nature and confined to adjudication of the present application only.