# Preeti @ Ranu Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 15900 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/preeti-ranu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45370
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A - Dowry
prohibition Act,1961 - Sections 3/4 at pretrial stage, the proceedings cannot be
quashed by this Court by exercising its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - A conduct
which abuses and makes a mockery of the
judicial process of the court is to be dealt
with iron hands and no person can tinker
with it to prevent, prejudice, obstruct or
interfere with the administration of justice -
prima facie case against the accused -
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. Para-7,10,11

Opposite party no.2 moved an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the first
information report against the accused persons -
who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-inlaw of opposite party no.2 - allegation - demand
of dowry - statutory investigation under Chapter
XII Cr.P.C. - submission of chargesheet -
summoning of accused persons.Para - 2,4

HELD:- Quashing or setting aside the impugned
orders as well as the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case is refused - NO illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned
orders or the proceedings under challenge -
absolutely no abuse of court's process. Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E -7)

## Text

11 All. Preeti @ Ranu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
101
substance. The fair chances of resolution of
matrimonial dispute through the process of
mediation, as has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicants, cannot
be ruled out.

29. Matter requires consideration,
after affording opportunity of hearing to
opposite party no. 2.

30. Learned A.G.A has already
accepted notice on behalf of State-opposite
party no. 1.

31. Issue notice to opposite party no.
2. He may file counter affidavit within a
period of four weeks.

32. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within two weeks thereafter.

33. List this case on 09.12.2020 in the
additional cause list.

34. On the next date of listing
opposite party no. 2 may also intimate the
Court
his
willingness
for
mediation
proceeding for resolution of the dispute.

35. As an interim measure, it is
provided that till the next date of listing no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants in the aforesaid complaint case.
----------
(2020)11ILR A101
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 15900 of 2020

Preeti @ Ranu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Anup Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A - Dowry
prohibition Act,1961 - Sections 3/4 at pretrial stage, the proceedings cannot be
quashed by this Court by exercising its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - A conduct
which abuses and makes a mockery of the
judicial process of the court is to be dealt
with iron hands and no person can tinker
with it to prevent, prejudice, obstruct or
interfere with the administration of justice -
prima facie case against the accused -
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. Para-7,10,11

Opposite party no.2 moved an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the first
information report against the accused persons -
who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-inlaw of opposite party no.2 - allegation - demand
of dowry - statutory investigation under Chapter
XII Cr.P.C. - submission of chargesheet -
summoning of accused persons.Para - 2,4

HELD:- Quashing or setting aside the impugned
orders as well as the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case is refused - NO illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned
orders or the proceedings under challenge -
absolutely no abuse of court's process. Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E -7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava,
learned A.G.A. for the State as well as
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perused the entire material available on
record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2009,
order taking cognizance dated 2nd April,
2010 and order dated 22nd January, 2013 as
well as entire proceedings of the Criminal
Case No. 1500 of 2010 (State Vs. Gaurav
Singh & Others), arising out of Case Crime
No. 97 of 2009,, under Sections 323, 504,
506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, DistrictPrayagraj (Allahabad), pending in the
Court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-2, Allahabad.

3. The facts, which are relevant for
the purposes of deciding the present
application are as follows:

A first information report has
been lodged by opposite party no.2, Indu
Singh on 17th February, 2009 through an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
against three named accused persons
Gaurav Singh, Kamla Singh and Preeti @
Ranu Singh (applicant herein), who are
husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of
opposite party no.2 respectively, which has
been registered as Case Crime No. 97 of
2009,, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A
I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police
Station-Naini,
District-Prayagraj
(Allahabad). In the said first information
report, it has been alleged by opposite party
no.2 that the marriage of opposite party
no.2 has been solemnized with Gaurav
Singh on 6th May, 2007 in accordance with
Hindu Rites and Customs. At the wedding,
as per his full capacity, the father of
opposite party no.2 gave Rs. 3 lac,
jewellery for a sum of Rs. 1 lac and utensils
for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to her in-laws as
demand of dowry but her husband, motherin-law and sister-in-law (all the accused
persons) were not satisfied. After marriage,
they used to harass opposite party no.2 for
Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle as additional
demand of dowry. On 8th July, 2007,
opposite party no.2 came to her parental
house and told her father and mother about
the aforesaid demand of dowry. In October,
2007, husband and mother-in-law of
opposite party no.2 came to her parental
house
and
demanded
the
aforesaid
additional demand of dowry by threatening
that if the aforesaid additional demand of
dowry was not fulfilled by the father of
opposite party no.2, they would not take
opposite party no.2 to their house. On the
assurance given by father of opposite party
no.2 to her husband and mother-in-law that
he would fulfill the said demand of dowry
at the earliest, as at that time he had no
money, her husband and mother-in-law
took her to their house. For few days, the
behaviour of the accused persons was
normal with opposite party no.2 but
thereafter all the accused persons started
abusing and beating her and demanded the
aforesaid dowry repeatedly. When opposite
party no.2 told her father about the said
behaviour of all the accused persons with
her, her father and brother came to her
matrimonial house at Katni. On coming of
father and brother of opposite party no.2 at
her matrimonial house, all the accused
persons threatened them that if they did not
fulfill their additional demand of dowry,
they would kill her. Then somehow, with
the help of Katni Police, father and brother
of opposite party no.2 brought her to her
parental house. The husband and motherin-law came to the parental house of
opposite party no.2 again and demanded
Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle but her father
requested them to take her daughter to their
house and he would fulfill their demand
11 All. Preeti @ Ranu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
103
after arranging the money but they did not
take his daughter i.e. opposite party no.2
along with them. Ultimately, opposite party
no.2 had no other option but to make an
application before the Police Station to
lodge the first information report against
them but the Police did not lodge the first
information report. Thereafter opposite
party no.2 moved an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the
first information report against the accused
persons. On the direction issued by the
court below, the first information report has
been lodged, which has been registered as
Case Crime No. 97 of 2009,, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also
under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationNaini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad).

4. Upon completion of the statutory
investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the
Investigating Officer has submitted the
charge-sheet on 12th Sepember, 2009
against the applicant and her mother and
brother, namely, Kamla Singh and Gaurav
Singh respectively under Sections 323, 504,
506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4
D.P. Act on which the court below i.e.
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Allahabad had taken cognizance vide order
dated 2nd April, 2010 and all the accused
persons had also been summoned by the
same order dated 2nd April, 2010.

5. From the perusal of the certified
copy of order-sheets of the court below,
which is at page 55 onwards of the paper
book, it is clear that when the accused
persons had not appeared before the Court
below, on the application filed by the
defence side, the court below wrote a letter
to the S.S.P. for summoning of the accused
persons on 29th March, 2011. Again when
the accused persons did not turn up, on
14th December, 2011 the Court below
wrote a letter to the Additional Director
General of Police at Katni (Madhya
Pradesh) for ensuring the presence of the
accused persons before the Court below.
On 16th May, 2012, bailable warrants
were issued against the accused persons.
Ultimately, on 22nd January, 2013 the
court below issued non-bailable warrants
against the accused persons. On 6th
August, 2013, the court below again issued
non-bailable warrants against the accused
persons and also a letter had been written to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Katni
(Madhya Pradesh) for ensuring their
presence before the court below. On 18th
January, 2015, two accused persons,
namely, Gaurav Singh and Kamla Singh
surrendered before the court below and
applied for bail. Kamla Singh was granted
bail but the second accused Gaurav Singh
was sent to jail. On 19th March, 2015, the
accused Gaurav Singh again applied for
bail and was granted bail by the court
below. However, the third accused i.e. the
applicant did not turn up. Ultimately, on
10th September, 2015, the court below
again issued non-bailable warrant against
her and a letter had also been written to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Katni
(Madhya Pradesh). Through the accused
persons, namely, Gaurav Singh and Kamla
Singh, who are none other than the brother
and mother of the applicant, have been
appearing before the court below and
facing trial but she did not appear. Now,
against
the
charge-sheet
dated
12th
September, 2009, order taking cognizance
dated 2nd April, 2010, order issuing nonbailable warrant against the applicant dated
22nd January, 2013 as well as entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case,
the applicant has approached this Court by
means of the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., which has been
reported on 21st October, 2020 and
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presented before the Court on 22nd
October, 2020.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the present first information
report lodged by opposite party no.2, namely,
Smt. Indu Singh is nothing but a bundle of lie
and the same has been lodged only for
exploiting the applicant and other accused
persons by indulging their names in a fake,
false
and
frivolous
case.
The
entire
prosecution story as unfolded in the first
information report is absolutely a self-made
story projected by opposite party no.2. The
applicant being the sister of the husband of
opposite party no.2 has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegations made by
opposite party no.2 are general and vague as
also the same have been levelled against her
husband and mother-in-law, who had caused
alleged incident at her father's house at Naini
(Allahabad),
therefore,
the
same
are
apparently false. It is not possible for husband
and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 to
visit her parental house and beat her. It is also
submitted that the applicant was married in
the year 2005 and lives at Ghaziabad along
with her husband since then. Though the
applicant is Nanad of opposite party no.2 but
she never demanded any dowry nor was
involved in the commission of the alleged
incident. Learned counsel for the applicant,
therefore, submitted that the present criminal
proceedings initiated against the applicant is
not only malicious but also amounts to an
abuse of the process of the Court. On the
cumulative
strength
of
the
aforesaid
submissions, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that the proceedings
of the above mentioned complaint case are
liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the applicant by
contending that it is settled law that at pretrial stage, the proceedings cannot be
quashed by this Court by exercising its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Apart from the above, learned
A.G.A.
also
submits
that
despite
summoning order dated 2nd April, 2010,
order issuing bailable warrant dated 16th
May, 2012, order issuing non-bailable
warrant dated 22nd January, 2013, such
persons like applicant, who has chosen not
to appear before the court below are not
entitled for any relief. The conduct of the
applicant shows total disrespect to the
process of the Court.

9. Normally this Court would have
not entertain application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. filed by such persons, who have
disobeyed the order of the court for more
than 10 years, but considering the fact that
the applicant is lady, this Court proposed
the learned counsel for the applicant that
the applicant may appear before the court
below and seek recall of the warrant so
issued under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C within
30 days and the Court also suggested that
for a period of 30 days she will be granted
interim
protection.
However,
learned
counsel for the applicant insisted the Court
that the proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case may be quashed as his case is
of high merit and the applicant has not
consciously disobeyed the order of the
court below. In support of his plea, he
referred to paragraph nos.-17 and 18 of the
affidavit
accompanying
the
present
application, which is read as follows:

"It is very much clear from the
order dated 2nd June, 2015 passed by
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
whereby
issued
Non-Bailable warrant
against the applicant and further be
11 All. Preeti @ Ranu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
105
directed
write
follow
to
senior
Superintendent of Police Katani even
applicant is residing at Ghaziabad along
with her husband therefore she could not
know about the said case and she could
know first time about the said case when
her brother has informed on 20.08. 2020
about the said case that local police has
informed that Non-Bailable warrant has
been issued against the applicant prior to
that neither counsel for the brother of the
applicant has informed about Non-Bailable
Warrant and ensure to her brother that case
against the applicant has been quashed.

18.That as soon as applicant
could
know
about
the
said
case
immediately engage counsel namely Sri
Ajay Kumar Singh and requested to
challenged before Hon'ble High Court
thereafter paper has been collected by
counsel and obtained certified copy from
the court concerned and thereafter same is
being filed without any further delay
therefore there is no any deliberately delay
on part of the applicant for filing the
instant criminal applicant under section
482 Cr.P.C."

10. So far as the first submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
applicant that since the criminal case
initiated by opposite party no.2 against the
accused persons including the applicant are
a false and frivolous case, the same may be
quashed, is concerned, this Court is of the
opinion that the submissions made by the
applicants'
learned
counsel
call
for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may adequately be adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A
threadbare discussion of various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause any
prejudice to either side during trial. But it
shall suffice to observe that the perusal of
the F.I.R. and the material collected by the
Investigating Officer on the basis of which
the charge sheet has been submitted makes
out a prima facie case against the accused
at this stage and there appear to be
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. This Court does not find any
justification to quash the charge sheet or
the proceedings against the applicants
arising out of them as the case does not fall
in any of the categories recognized by the
Apex Court which may justify their
quashing.

11. The second submission made by
the learned counsel for the applicant that
the applicant has not deliberately disobeyed
the order of the court and the process of
law has only been stated to be rejected on
the ground that for a common man, it is
impossible to believe that a person, who is
residing separately at another place from
her brother and mother with whom she is in
constant contact did not know for more
than five years about a criminal case, which
has been initiated against herself and her
brother and mother in which her brother
and mother surrendered before the court
below on 18th January, 2015. Thereafter
her mother was granted bail on 18th
January, 2015 and her brother was granted
bail on 19th March, 2015. Since then, they
are facing trial. It is only on 20th August,
2020 that the applicant has been informed
by her brother Gaurav Singh i.e. coaccused that non-bailable warrant has been
issued against her. Such explanation given
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the learned counsel on behalf of his
client i.e. the applicant herein cannot be
accepted by this Court. A conduct which
abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial
process of the court is to be dealt with iron
hands and no person can tinker with it to
prevent, prejudice, obstruct or interfere
with the administration of justice.

12. The prayer for quashing or setting
aside the impugned orders as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case is refused as I do not see any illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned orders or the proceedings under
challenge. There is absolutely no abuse of
court's process perceptible in the same. The
present matter also does not fall in any of
the categories recognized by the Supreme
Court which might justify interference by
this Court in order to upset or quash them.

13. In view of the aforesaid the
present application is dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen
thousand rupees only). The said cost shall
be deposited by the applicant by way of a
bank draft in the name of Registrar General
of this Court within one month from today.
In case the applicant does not deposit the
same within the time provided the same
shall
be
recovered
by
the
District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad from her arrears of
land revenue. On deposit of Rs. 15,000/-
the Registrar General shall transmit to the
concerned account for the use of poor
clients, who do not bear to file their case
before this Court.
----------

(2020)11ILR A106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 38936 of 2019

Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mehdi Abbas

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
325, 336, 452, 504, 506 - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2) - No
police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a
magistrate having power to try such case
or commit the case for trial - Conversion
of N.C.R. into F.I.R. during investigation
after finding the fact that the accused
persons had caused serious injuries to
victim
and
had
thereby
committed
cognizable offence, is neither illegal nor
impermissible .Para - 11

(B) Law regarding sufficiency of material -
justify the summoning of accused - also
the court's decision to proceed against
him in a given case - court has to eschew
itself from embarking upon a roving
enquiry into the last details of the case -
Not advisable to adjudge whether the
case shall ultimately end in conviction or
not - Only a prima facie satisfaction of the
court about the existence of sufficient
ground to proceed in the matter is
required.Para - 5

An application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. -
before the court below for investigation in
pursuance of the allegations made in the N.C.R.
- allowed by the Magistrate concerned - S.H.O.
concerned was directed to investigate the case
- present case - neither two FIRs nor different
charge-sheets filed against the applicants for
the same cause of action - Only one police
report report i.e. charge sheet submitted by the