Vishal Salgotra And Others vs Additional Public Prosecutor, Jammu And Another

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of order dated 15.07.2021 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by the Court of Special Electricity Magistrate, Jammu) ( for brevity ‘learned Magistrate’) in criminal challan titled State vs. Vishal Salgotra and others, whereby the petitioners’ have been charged for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/109 RPC and also for quashsment of aforesaid challan No. 07/2019 in FIR No. 11/2019 dated 03.04.2019 registered with Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

The background facts, those stem out from the petition, according to the petitioners, are that petitioner No. 1 is the younger brother of petitioners 2 and 3. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are married since 1994 and are happily living in their respective matrimonial home and both are Government employees and working in Health Department.. It is stated that at the instance of respondent No.2, wife of petitioner No. 1 an FIR came to be registered on the basis of false facts and grounds in Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/109 RPC and in turn a challan was presented in the Trial Court.

The impugned order is being challenged inter- alia on the following grounds:-

That the impugned order of the trial court and charge sheet including the impugned challan and FIR have been passed in sheer abuse of process of law;

That the accusation by the respondent No. 2 in her FIR against the petitioners and also in the challan do not constitute an offence of cruelty described in terms of Section 498-A, because there was no demand of dowry on the part of the petitioners from respondent No. 2 or her family members;

That the respondent No. 2 lodged the impugned FIR as a counter blast after two years of filing of divorce petition by the petitioner No. 1;

That the impugned FIR/Challan is actuated with malafide and malice on the part of respondent No. 2 towards the petitioners to settle the score and satisfy her grudge to harass the petitioners.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the record trends to show that at the instance complainant-respondent No. 2 herein an FIR No. 11/2019 dated 03.04.2019 cane to be registered with Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences punishable under Section 498-A/109 RPC against the accused/petitioners herein on the allegation of causing mental harassment to the complainant and for demanding dowry from her. In the complaint it was further alleged that the petitioners herein demanded money from the complainant for adjusting the loan which her husband had taken. In the complaint it was further alleged that just to harass the complainant her husband/petitioner No. 1 herein has applied for divorce by leveling false allegations against the complainant.

After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court of Special Electricity Magistrate, Jammu.

A perusal of the record tends to show that the learned Magistrate after considering the charge sheet, documents on record vide its order dated 15.07.2021 held that the offences punishable under Section 498-A/109 RPC are made out against the accused/petitioners herein.

In Monica Kumar (Dr) Vs. State of U.P, (2008(8) SCC 781, the Supreme Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercise sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. However, in exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process of Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C quash the proceedings.

The allegations leveled in the charge sheet regarding the commission of the alleged offence are required to be proved during the trial by adducing the evidence and the grounds taken by the petitioners in the instant case can be taken in defence before the learned Magistrate.

In view of the above, I do not see any case having been made out by the petitioners, therefore, the instant petition shall stand dismissed.