Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:121366
Court No. – 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1084 of 2020
Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma And 3 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar Ravat,Kamal Singh Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. At the outset, Sri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that during the pendency of this application, applicant no. 3, Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Shivram Verma has expired. As such, application arising out of Case No. 323 of 2019 (State v. Bhanu Prakash Verma & others), arisiing out of Case Crime No. 79 of 2018, udner Sections 498-A, 323 and 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirsa Kalar, District- Jalaun, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun as well as proceedings are hereby abated qua to the applicant no. 3 (Smt. Munni Devi).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the stage of notice, stay was granted qua to applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jeth, respectively. However, no stay was granted qua to applicant no. 1, that is the husband. He has appeared before the learned Trial Court and was granted bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that even statement of the opposite party no. 2, that is wife of applicant no. 1 is considered and taken on the face of it to be true, allegations against applicant no. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C. could not be made out as well as allegation against applicant no. 4, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 354 I.P.C. also could not be made out.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to statement of the complainant which for reference is reproduced hereinafter:
“बययन पपड़ड़तय समबबधधत मम०अ०स० 79 of 2018 धरय 490A/323/324/ 3/4 DP Act थयनय धसरसय कलयर धज० जयललन धयरय 161 CRPC 22 म म नपलम ददवप पतनप भयनम पकयश वमधसदलयपमर थयनय गगहन धज० जयललन . (सगड़नयय ड़वहयर पहलय पगसतय गलप नब० 35 भगत जप मननदर नई ड़दलप )
कद सयथ मदरप शयदप ड़द० 29-1-2016 कग मदरद ड़पतय नद ड़हनद द ररड़क ररवयज सद कक थप धजसमम मदरद ड़पतय शप ममलययम धसबह ड़न० व कसबय धसरसयकल धज० जयललन नद दहदज म म 500000 र 300000 कय सयमयन ड़दयय। शयदप कद क मछ समय बयद हप ससमरयल पक सद जदठ ड़शवपकयश ससमर ड़शवरयम वमयर सयस ममनप ददवप दहदज म म एक मगटर सयइड़कल व तप लयख र और मयमगनद लगद इसप वपच मनद एक म लडकक कग जनम ड़दयय जग ड़क मदरद ड़पतय जप कद घर ह हई थप कमछ ड़दन बयद मदरद पड़त ममझद ससमरयल लद गयद वहय घर क मछ समय ठपक सद रहप ड़फर जदठ मदरद सयथ छदडछयड करनद लगय जब इस बयत कय हमनद ड़वरगध ड़कयय वग सयस ससमर व पड़त भयनम मयरपपट करनद लगद क मछ ड़दन बयद हमनद अपनद पयपय कग सयरप बयत म बतयई तव वग लगग मदरद सयथ मयरपपट करतद खयनय नहप ददतद कमछ ड़दन बयद वग सब लगग ममझद मदरद ड़पतय कद घर छगर गयद और मदरद पयपय कद घर म म हप ममझद मयरपपट कक और ममझद जमपन पटककर वयपस चलद गयद घटनय कद समय रणजपत ड़न० नवलपमरय कयलपप , जयगदशवर ड़न० व थयनय धसरसय कलयर धज० जयललन आड़द लगग थद म नद क म मछ ड़दनन तक परयमशर ड़शकययत कद नद मम ड़शकययत कक थप ड़क समझलतय कर लग पर वग लगग नहप आयद तग अब म मकद श करनय चयहतप हहम।”
5. Learned counsel refers extensively the above referred statement that so far as demand of dowry is concerned, it was only against the applicant nos. 2, 3 (since deceased) and 4. Not a single averment is mentioned qua to the applicant no. 1, that is the husband.
6. So far as allegation of assault is concerned, it is against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, not a single date, month or year is mentioned for the occurrence. As such, it appears to be a case of omnibus allegations.
7. So far as allegation of outraging modesty is concerned, which is against the applicant no. 4, it also does not appears to be true, since the manner of occurrence as well as its date, month or year has also not been mentioned.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that it is a case where facts of the present case are squarely covered by facts and law, as held in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein after considering various judgments of Supreme Court viz., Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 it was observed as follows:-
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if
left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Opposite party no. 2 has been served and one Sri Jitendra Kumar Ravat, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama. However, he is not present today, though a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is being annexed along with the counter affidavit. I have also carefully perused it. Wherein also, in a very general way refers “मदरद जदठ मदरद सयथ छदड़खयनप करतद ह ” without even disclosing date, month or म year. As such, it is nothing but a vague allegation. In this regard, Court also takes note of following paragraph of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and others:
“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood All v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.”
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that these proceedings are an abuse of process of law as well as that basic ingredient of all offences referred above are not made out. The victim has made sweeping, general and omnibus allegations.
11. Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 30.03.2019 and cognizance order dated 21.06.2019 arising out of Case No. 323 of 2019 (State v. Bhanu Prakash Verma & others), arisiing out of Case Crime No. 79 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun as well as further proceeding does not survive against all the applicants (Applicant no. 3 has died during pending proceeding).
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2024
Prashant D.
