# Parashuram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1081
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 24793 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parashuram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50926
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 498-A & 326 - D.P. Act, 1961 -
Sections 3⁄4 - Opposite party no. 2, father
of victim, lodged F.I.R. against applicants
- It was alleged that marriage of his
daughter
with
applicant
no.
1,
was
solemnized and due to non-fulfillment of
additional
dowry
demand,
she
was
subjected to cruelty and they sent back to
her parental home - After investigation,
charge-sheet
submitted
against
all
accused persons -After framing of charge,
trial proceeded and St.ments of informant
and victim, wife of applicant no. 1,
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded as PW-1 and PW-2, wherein they
supported prosecution case - Counsel for
applicants contends that parties settled
their dispute before Gram Pradhan and
elite people of village - Victim and
informant moved application before Civil
Judge (J.D.), seeking reconsideration in
light of compromise, but no order passed
thereon - Held, allegations disclose that
on non-fulfillment of dowry demand,
applicant nos. 5 and 6 held hand of victim,
applicant no. 1 severed her nipples with
sharp weapon, applicant no. 4 gagged her
mouth, and applicant nos. 2 and 3 held her
legs and assaulted her - Further, "sambal"
was inserted in her genital by her
husband, causing bleeding - Victim, in her
deposition, fully supported prosecution
version, affirming permanent severance of
her nipples - Thus, application lacks merit,
dismissed. (Para 3, 5, 7, 9)

Application dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Parashuram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1081
necessary to ensure that access to courts is
available
to
citizens
with
genuine
grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be
shut to legitimate causes simply by the
weight of undeserving cases which flood
the system. Such a situation cannot be
allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not
merely a matter of discretion but a duty
and obligation cast upon all courts to
ensure that the legal system is not exploited
by those who use the forms of the law to
defeat or delay justice. We commend all
courts to deal with frivolous filings in the
same manner."

Result

21. As a fallout and consequence of
above discussion, the impugned order dated
05.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 321 of 2022 is liable to be quashed and
is hereby quashed and the order dated
18.12.2021 passed in Maintenance Case
No. 1500091 of 2014 (old no.381/2002),
(Sahavi Khatoon Vs.Jamal Khan), under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, District Ballia is restored.

22. This Court is of the view that in
different circumstances, an inherent power
may be exercised in different ways to
achieve its ultimate object. Accordingly, in
order to secure the end of justice, the
applicant-Jamal Khan (husband) is directed
to pay entire arrears of maintenance
amount to the applicant-Sahabi Khatoon
(wife) within one month in accordance with
above order dated 18.12.2021 (i.e. at the
rate of Rs.5,000/-per month from the date
of presentation of the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2002) and
in future also he shall pay the current
amount of maintenance on the 10th day of
each month to the applicant, failing which,
learned Family Court concerned shall
immediately initiate recovery proceeding,
etc. against the opposite party no.2
(husband) in accordance with law in order
to ensure the payment of entire amount of
maintenance to the applicant, who has not
received single penny for the last 21 years.

23. Accordingly with the aforesaid
observations and directions, the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed
by the applicant-Sahabi Khatoon (wife) is
allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1081
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 24793 of 2023

Parashuram & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Yatish Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 498-A & 326 - D.P. Act, 1961 -
Sections 3⁄4 - Opposite party no. 2, father
of victim, lodged F.I.R. against applicants
- It was alleged that marriage of his
daughter
with
applicant
no.
1,
was
solemnized and due to non-fulfillment of
additional
dowry
demand,
she
was
subjected to cruelty and they sent back to
her parental home - After investigation,
charge-sheet
submitted
against
all
accused persons -After framing of charge,
trial proceeded and St.ments of informant
and victim, wife of applicant no. 1,
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded as PW-1 and PW-2, wherein they
supported prosecution case - Counsel for
applicants contends that parties settled
their dispute before Gram Pradhan and
elite people of village - Victim and
informant moved application before Civil
Judge (J.D.), seeking reconsideration in
light of compromise, but no order passed
thereon - Held, allegations disclose that
on non-fulfillment of dowry demand,
applicant nos. 5 and 6 held hand of victim,
applicant no. 1 severed her nipples with
sharp weapon, applicant no. 4 gagged her
mouth, and applicant nos. 2 and 3 held her
legs and assaulted her - Further, "sambal"
was inserted in her genital by her
husband, causing bleeding - Victim, in her
deposition, fully supported prosecution
version, affirming permanent severance of
her nipples - Thus, application lacks merit,
dismissed. (Para 3, 5, 7, 9)

Application dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors.., (2012) 10
SCC 303

2. Ramgopal & anr. Vs St. of M.P., 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 834

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to
quash the case no. 880 of 2012 (State vs.
Parashuram & others) arising out of case
crime no. 670 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba,
pending in the court of Civil Judge
(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Charkhari on the
basis of compromise.

2. Heard Mr. Y.K.Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rabindra
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Kumar Singh, Brief Holder for the
State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 and Mr.
Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2.

3. The brief facts of the case which
are required to be stated are that the
opposite party no. 2, who is father of the
victim, lodged a F.I.R. dated 04.07.2012
with regard to an incident which took place
on 02.07.2012 at Case Crime No. 670 of
2012 for the offence under Sections 498-A
I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba
against the applicants alleging inter-alia
that the marriage of his daughter was
solemnized
on
26.06.2012
with
the
applicant no. 1-Parashuram but on account
of non-fulfillment of additional demand of
the accused persons in the marriage, they
sent his daughter to his house after
committing cruelty with her. F.I.R. further
alleges that Parashuram (husband of his
daughter) cut her both nipples and also
caused injury in her genitals.

4.

The victim
was
medically
examined on 04.07.2012 and following
injuries were found on her body:-

(i) Abrasion of about 2x2 cm in
size over left side of cheek 8 cm anterior to
tragus.

(ii) Amputation of both side of
nipple with contusion over the left side of
breast. Scab present over the both nipple
site.

(iii) Abrasion of 1x1/2 cm in size
over the left lateral side of leg, 15 cm
above from left ankle joint.

(iv) Pt complain of pain over the
genital and surrounding.
3 All. Parashuram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083

As per opinion of the doctor, the
injury nos. 1 and 3 are caused by hard and
blunt object, whereas the injury no. 2 is
caused by sharp edged object, which are
grievous in nature. Regarding the injury no.
4, no definite opinion can be given by the
doctor, therefore, the victim was referred to
P.H. Mahoba for MLE of genital and
surrounding area for expert opinion.

5. After culmination of investigation,
charge-sheet dated 15.07.2012 has been
submitted against the applicant no.1Parashuram (husband) under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and
charge-sheet dated 26.09.2012 has been
submitted against all other five accused
persons under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. After framing of
charge, trial proceeded and statement of the
informant as well as victim who is wife of
the applicant no. 1 has been recorded as
PW-1 and PW-2 on 29.05.2015, in which
they have supported the prosecution case.

6. Here it would be relevant to quote
the statement of the victim/PW-2.

"साक्षी इन्द्रकुमारी पत्नी परशुराम
उमग 24 िषग पेशा गृहणी हाल पता- ग्राम स्र्थालट
र्थाना चरखारी ने सशपर्थ ियान ककया कक-मेरी
शादी 3 िषग पूिग हुई र्थी। मेरी शादी में सिी
घरेलू सामान जेिर जिंजीर कपड़े तलले मेरे िाप
ने हदये र्थे। ससुराल िाले परशुराम, काशीराम,
राजेश सिी मोटर साइककल, 50,000 रूपये
मॉगते र्थे। िदलुआ, काशीिाई, कमलेश िी दहेज
मॉगते र्थे। दहेज की मॉग को लेकर 28 तारीख
को काशीिाई, कमलेश ने हार्थ पकड़ा और
परशुराम िारदार ब्लेड जैसा पैना चाकू जैसा
हधर्थयार र्था, से मेरे दोनों तनप्पल काट सलये।
धचललाया ककन्तु िदलूआ ने मुाँह दिया र्था।
राजेश ि िनीराम ने मेरा पॉि पकड़ रखा र्था।
पटका र्था, मारा पीटा र्था। चप्पल से मारा पीटा
र्था। सब्िल गुप्तािंग में डाल हदया र्था। कह रहे
र्थे कक अपने माता वपता से 50,000 नकद ि
गाडी ले आना। इससलए ये सि ककये र्थे। 2
तारीख को मुझे मैके छोड़ गये। राजेश छोड़
गये। मैनें अपनी माता को सुिह िताया कक मेरे
सार्थ क्या-क्या हुआ। ररपोटग कराने र्थाने गये र्थे।
वपता जी ने प्रिान के लड़के से प्रा०पत्र सलखाकर
ररपोटग करायी र्थी। चार तारीख महोिा में दरोगा
जी ने िेजकर डाक्टरी करायी र्थी। दरोगा जी ने
िाद में मेरा 15 तारीख को ियान सलया र्था।
मेरे घर आकर ियान सलये र्थे। मेरे शरीर के
दोनों तनप्पल अि नहीिं है। स्र्थायी रूप से शरीर
से अलग हो गये है। मेरे सार्थ जो िी घटना हुई
िह दहेज की मॉग को लेकर हुई।

xxxxxxxxxजजरह
द्िारा
अधििक्ता
काशीिाई ि कमलेश

मेरी शादी 26 तारीख को हुई र्थी।
विदा होकर ससुराल गयी र्थी। इनकी ससुराल
पहुिंची। ससुराल में चार हदन रही। याना नयाना
की रश्में या कोई रश्में नहीिं हुई। कफर कही रश्में
हुई। देिता पूजन हुआ। चार हदन िी ससुराल में
प्रेम से नहीिं रही। मेरे वपता जी ने ससुराल िालों
से कहा कक मायके सलिा आओ तो िे मैके
ससुराल में मेरा कोई इलाज नहीिं हुआ। जि मैं
मायके आयी िेहोश र्थी। मुझे राजेश पकड़कर
लाया र्था। मुझे अस्पताल में होश आया। मेरी
नन्द काशी िाई की शादी में गयी। मेरे सार्थ हुई
घटना 29 तारीख की रात में 12-1 िजे हुई र्थी।
मैं पतत पत्नी र्थे। इसके िाद सलाह करके िाकी
लोग आ गये। सब्िल डालने से खून तनकला
र्था। 10-15 समनट तक तनकला र्था। सब्िल
परशुराम ने डाला र्था। सब्िल डालते समय सिी
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
असियुक्त र्थे। मेरे धचललाने पर मोहलले का
कोई िी नहीिं आया मेरा मुिंह दिाये र्थे। मैं िहॉ
ककसी को जानती नहीिं र्थी तो िताती ककससे।
मैने अपने वपताजी को सिी मुजलजमान के नाम
िताये र्थे। राजेश रात िर मेरे यहॉ रूका र्था।
चूाँकक राजेश रात िी रूका र्था इससलये रात में
नहीिं िताया। सुिह राजेश खाना पीना खाकर
गया र्था। रोका ककया कक नहीिं मुझे नहीिं पता
और दरोगा जी ने मेरा ियान 15 तारीख को
गााँि आकर सलया र्था। मम्मी पापा का िी
ियान सलया र्था। जजस समय असियुक्त गण ने
िारदात की उस समय मैं िेपरदा र्थी। यह
कहना गलत है कक मेरे सार्थ कोई िारदात नहीिं
हुई। यह िी कहना गलत है कक दरेज की कोई
मॉग नहीिं हुई।

xxxxxxxxxजजरह द्िारा शेष असियुक्त

िारात सालर गयी र्थी। शादी में कोई
वििाद नहीिं हुआ र्था। जि मायके से ससुराल
आयी हिंसी खुशी विदायी हुई र्थी। 27 ता० को
ससुराल आ गयी र्थी। 28 तारीख को ससुराल में
अच्छे से रहे। घटना 29 तारीख की राबत्र की है।
राबत्र 11 िजे मैं अपने कमरें में र्थी। मेरे पतत
मेरे पास आये। पतत पत्नी के िीच दाम्पत्य
िमग का तनिगहन नहीिं हुआ। मेरे पतत मुझे गाली
गलौज दे रहे र्थे। 29 तारीख के पहले िी पतत
ने गाली गलौज हदया र्था। यह पूछने पर कक
पतत ने पहले कि गाली हदया र्था? साक्षी ने कहा
कक 4 िजे।

प्रश्न- आपके स्तनों को पतत ने दॉतों
से पकड़ सलया र्था?

उिरः- नहीिं।

घटना मेरे िेडरूम की र्थी। कमरे में
लालटेन जल रही र्थी। तनप्पल पर चोट पहुाँची
तो मैं धचललायी तो कोई नहीिं आया। मैं इस ददग
को सुिह तक सहती रही। सुिह कोई इलाज
नहीिं कराय गया। दरोगा जी ने घटना के िारे में
पूछताछ की। मैनें दरोगा जी को पूरी घटना
ितायी र्थी। 29 से 3 के िीच ससुराल िालों से
मायके जाने की इच्छा व्यक्त की र्थी। मायके
से कोई लेने नहीिं आया र्था। पापा ने िेजने के
सलए कहा र्था। कक िदलुआ (ससुर) से कहा र्था
कक हम लेने नीिं आऐिंगे तुम िेज दो। मैं सारा
सामान दे दूिंगा। घटना के िाद मैं सामान्य
जस्र्थत में नहीिं र्थी। जिरदस्ती िनी रही। िोजन
पानी कर लेती र्थी। नहीिं ककया तो नहीिं ककया।
जजस हदन ससुराल से मायके गयी, उस हदन
घटना के िारें में ककसी को कुछ नहीिं िताया।
अगले हदन सुिह अपनी मम्मी को िताया।
अपने घाि िी हदखाये। पापा को मैने ि मम्मी
ने िी िताया। पापा को पूरी घटना ितायी र्थी।
कुछ िी नहीिं तछपाया र्था। जैसा मैने पापा को
िताया र्था। िैसा ही पापा ने ररपोटग की र्थी।
ररपोटग कराने मैं िी गयी र्थी। दरोगा जी ने
मुझसे िी पूछा र्था। दरोगा जी को िी पूरी
घटना ितायी र्थी। हम अपने पापा चाचा के
सार्थ अस्पताल गये। अस्पताल में डाक्टर 4-5
चोटें ितायी र्थी। सिी चोटों का डाक्टर साहि ने
मुआइना ककया र्था। अदालत में िी मेरे ियान
हुए र्थे। अदालत में िी घटना के िारे में िताया
र्था। र्थाने के िाद िॉदा में सलखा पढ़ी की र्थी।
िही िातें िहॉ िी सलखी र्थी जो र्थाने की
एफ.आई.आर. में र्थी। सशकायत (िॉदा िाली)
कहॉ सलखायी गयी, इसकी मुझे जानकारी नहीिं
है। यह कहना गलत है कक मेरा पतत मुझे
चाहता है। अगर चाहता होता तो 3 साल में
खिर न लेता."

7. The main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for the applicants is that
3 All. Parashuram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085
on 07.01.2018, the parties concerned have
settled their dispute outside the Court and
in presence of Gram Pradhan and other
elite people of village, compromise took
place and it was agreed that the accused
persons will keep the victim well and in a
dignified manner in her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, the victim and informant moved
an application before Civil Judge (J.D.),
Mahoba mentioning therein that the victim
is living in her matrimonial home for the
last two years and she does not want any
action in the matter against the accused
persons, therefore, the matter may be reexamined in the light of compromise but no
order has been passed on the said
application. Learned counsel for the
applicant, in support of his submission,
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Ramgopal and
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 834. On the strength
of aforesaid facts, it is argued that now the
criminal proceeding against the applicants
is liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
opposed the submissions of the learned
counsel for the applicants by contending
that the allegations levelled against the
applicants are heinous in nature. It is a case
of extreme cruelty which is not private in
nature but against the society at large,
therefore, criminal proceeding/trial against
the applicants, which is at the advanced
stage, cannot be quashed. However, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2 did not oppose the prayer of the
applicants.

9. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perusing the record, I
find that as per allegations against the
applicants on non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry, the applicant no. 6-Smt. Kashi Bai
and applicant no. 5-Smt. Kamlesh held the
hand of the victim and applicant no. 1Parashuram, who is husband of the victim,
cut her both nipples with a sharp edged
weapon like a blade/knife. The victim
shouted but the applicant no. 4-Badalua
kept her mouth shut. Applicant no. 3Rajesh Prajapati and applicant no. 2Dhaniram Prajapati were holding her leg
and she was beaten with slippers. "Sambal"
was also put in her genital as they were
asking to bring Rs. 50,000/- cash and a car
from her parent that is why all this cruelty
was done with the victim. I also find that
the victim, in her examination-in-chief,
recorded
before
the
trial
court
has
supported the prosecution case and also
stated that both of the nipple of her body
are no more and permanently separated.
Her husband-Parashuram had inserted
''sambal'' in her genital, due to which
bleeding has come out. The incident took
place in her bedroom where lantern was
burning. She screamed but no one came.
She was suffering from pain till morning
and no treatment was done in the morning.
This Court is of the view that it is a case of
extreme cruelty and barbarian act on the
part of accused persons, while daughtersin-law's are pride of the house. Such
incident are beyond imagination and it is a
rare case. It is well settled that every case
turns on its own facts. Even one additional
or different fact may make a big difference
between the conclusion in two cases,
because even a single significant detail may
alter the entire aspect.

10. It need no emphasis that the
inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or First Information Report may
be exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case.
The gravity and nature of the crime are the
relevant consideration before exercising the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences which involve moral
turpitude or moral fabric of the society or
have the potential to impact the society at
large cannot be fittingly quashed even the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. In different
situations, the inherent power may be
exercised in different ways to achieve its
ultimate objective.

11. As a fallout and consequence of
above discussion, this Court is not inclined
to accept the submissions made on behalf
of the applicants. The relief as sought for
by the applicants is not liable to be allowed.

12. The application lacks merit, and is
accordingly, dismissed.

13. The copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial Court within a week.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1086
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 25402 of 2017

Pritam Singh Raghuvanshi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Swetashwa Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Abhishek Tripathi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202, 202(1), 202(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 415 & 420 - - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138: -

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint
case - Allegation pertains to a commercial
transaction, lacking ingredients of cheating -
alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a
business transaction - Summoned under -
Grounds for Quashing - Complaint filed after an
inordinate delay of 11 years, indicating mala
fide intent - No proceedings initiated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -
Mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. not
conducted, despite applicant residing outside
Magistrate's jurisdiction - Court finds that - No
prima facie case made out under Section 420
IPC - Delay and absence of N.I. Act invocation
weaken the complaint - court finds that,
magistrate failed to record satisfaction or
conduct inquiry as mandated under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. - filing of complaint deemed an
abuse of process to exert undue pressure - held
- dispute between the parties is purely a
commercial dispute and the remedy for the
same lies under civil remedy and the opposite
party no. 2 has given the colour of criminality to
the purely business transaction and also there is
no
element
of
cheating
-
consequently,
proceeding of the complaint case with the
summoning order is quashed - accordingly,
application is allowed.
(Para - 10, 11, 13, 15, 18)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & anr.Vs Sudha
Seetharam & anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC
739,

2. Archana Rana Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in
(2021)
3
SCC
751,