# Rahul Mishra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-27
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 7024 of 2017
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-mishra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51323
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498A,
323,
504,
506,
The
Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4 -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 -
Divorce - Law relating to quashing - If the
allegations are absurd or do not make out
any case or if it can be held that there is
abuse of process of law, the proceedings
can be quashed but if there is a triable
case the court does not go into reliability
or otherwise of the version or the counterversion - In matrimonial cases, the courts
have
to
be
cautious when
omnibus
allegations are made particularly against
relatives who are not generally concerned
with the affairs of the couple - Quashing
of a charge is an exception to the rule of
continuous prosecution - Court is not
expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima facie.(Para - 28)

Marriage between Applicant No. 1 and Opposite
Party
No.
2
(Informant's
daughter)
-
Harassment for dowry (car demand) - FIR
lodged alleging harassment, dowry demand,
physical
assault,
and
false
claims
about
Applicant No. 1's qualifications - Quashing of
charge
sheet,
summoning
order,
and
proceedings. (Para - 2 to 25)

HELD: - Uncontroverted allegations prima facie
establishes the offence. Materials submitted by
the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Court cannot meticulously examine evidence for
acquittal/conviction. Criminal proceedings are
not an abuse of process of court leading to
injustice.(Para - 32)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 41,195. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1175
settlement and those were honoured to the
extent of the decision taken by UPRERA, thus
this Court is of considred opinion that the dispute is
commercial between the parties. So far as any other
investigation/enquiry said to be completed against
the applicants, that can not be intermingled with the
instant matter and that will be investigated and
examined, separately.

35). It's trite law that mens rea is an essential
ingredient for composition of offence and all civil
wrongs can not be termed as an offence. The facts
of each and every case are to be examined while
reaching to the conclusion that whether, a wrong
act comes under the purview of offence? So far as
the present matter is concerned, while examining
the facts of the case, it emerges that mens rea is
missing.

36). This court is also not unmindful to the
ratio of the judgement and orders rendered in
cases, namely State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
(1992) SUPP 1 SCC 335, Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Gold Quest
International Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (2014) 15 SCC 235, Parbatbahi Aahir @
Parbhatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others
Vs. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Mitesh
Kumar Jha Vs. State of Karnataka; (2021) SCC
OnLine SCC 976, Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of
Karnataka and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC
603, Inder Mohan Goswami and anr. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand (2007)12 SCC 1 and Syed Yaseer
Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 271.

37). Admittedly, after the said violation of
terms of MoU, the parties have entered into
settlement and the addendum settlement and that
has been performed and honoured to some extent
and which further could not be performed for the
circumstances, which are not under control of the
applicants. Further, if the Complainant has any
grievance for non compliance of the MoU or
breach of the terms and conditions of the MoU, it
is always open to raise it before the court of civil
competence.

38). This court has also taken note of the
undertaking of the applicants that they are still
ready to perform addendum dated 14.07.2022 to
the settlement agreement and therefore this court
is of opinion that allowing the further criminal
proceeding would amount to harassment of the
applicants and therefore the criminal proceedings
against the applicants are abuse of process of law.

39).

Consequently,
the
impugned
summoning orders dated 06.09.2019 and
18.11.2019 are hereby set aside and the criminal
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
162/2018 u/S 406,419,420,506,467,468 and 471
of IPC, Police Station- Vibhuti Khand, district-
Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

30). The application is allowed accordingly.

41). Office is directed to communicate this
order to the trial Court concerned.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 7024 of 2017

Rahul Mishra & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Dineysh Agrawal, Dileep Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A. Mahesh Kumar, Prabhat Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498A,
323,
504,
506,
The
Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4 -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 -
Divorce - Law relating to quashing - If the
allegations are absurd or do not make out
any case or if it can be held that there is
abuse of process of law, the proceedings
can be quashed but if there is a triable
case the court does not go into reliability
or otherwise of the version or the counterversion - In matrimonial cases, the courts
have
to
be
cautious when
omnibus
allegations are made particularly against
relatives who are not generally concerned
with the affairs of the couple - Quashing
of a charge is an exception to the rule of
continuous prosecution - Court is not
expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima facie.(Para - 28)

Marriage between Applicant No. 1 and Opposite
Party
No.
2
(Informant's
daughter)
-
Harassment for dowry (car demand) - FIR
lodged alleging harassment, dowry demand,
physical
assault,
and
false
claims
about
Applicant No. 1's qualifications - Quashing of
charge
sheet,
summoning
order,
and
proceedings. (Para - 2 to 25)

HELD: - Uncontroverted allegations prima facie
establishes the offence. Materials submitted by
the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Court cannot meticulously examine evidence for
acquittal/conviction. Criminal proceedings are
not an abuse of process of court leading to
injustice.(Para - 32)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Musstt Rehana Begum Vs St. of Assam,
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 82

2. Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs Laxmi Prasad, (2009)
11 SCC 545

3. Sardool Singh Vs Nasib Kaur, 1987 Supp SCC
146
4. Abhishek Vs St. of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083

5. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bihar, (2022) 6
SCC 599

6. Taramani Parakh Vs St. of M.P., (2015) 11
SCC 260

7. Rajaram Sharma Vs St. of U.P., Criminal
Appeal No. 63 of 2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri D. K. Agrawal and Ms
Anupriya Agarwal Advocates, the learned
Counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra
Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for the State and
Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Sri Prabhat
Pandey and Sri Mahesh Kumar Advocates,
the learned Counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicants have sought quashing of the
Charge Sheet No.14 of 2016 dated
24.12.2016 submitted in furtherance of
Case Crime No.10 of 2016, Police Station,
Mahila Thana, District Amethi under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. They
have also sought quashing of the order
dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in
Case No.1818 of 2017, taking cognizance
of the aforesaid offences and summoning
the applicants to face trial of the aforesaid
offences.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted
on the basis of an FIR lodged by the
opposite party No. 2 on 22.07.2016 stating
that the informant had got his daughter
married
to
the
applicant
No.1
on
2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1177
15.02.2015.
Wedding
ceremony
was
solemnized at Etawah. The informant had
spent Rs.15,00,000/- in the wedding and
related ceremonies and he had given
Rs.6,00,000/- in cash, besides several other
valuable articles. At the time of settlement
of the marriage, the applicants had told that
the applicant No.1 had done MBA from
Birmingham University in United Kingdom
in first division and that he was working as
a Manager in a real estate concern at
Gurugram. After the marriage, the accused
persons started harassing the informant's
daughter for demanding a car. Later on, it
came to light that the applicant no.1 did not
possess a degree, as had been claimed by
the applicants and he merely holds a Post
Graduate Diploma in Management, in
which he had secured second division and
perhaps that diploma is not recognized in
India. The FIR alleges that the accused
persons had beaten up the informant's
daughter on 21.12.2015, took away her
stridhan and dropped her near the house of
the informant in HAL campus at Korba,
Munshi
Gunj,
District
Amethi.
The
informant tried to resolve the disputes, but
he was always insulted.

4. During investigation, the informant
and
his
daughter
gave
statements
supporting
the
FIR
allegations.
Accordingly,
the
investigating
officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the
accused
persons.
The
Court
took
cognizance of the offences and summoned
the applicants to face trial by means of
impugned order dated 27.03.2017.

5. The applicants have sought
quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning
order and the proceedings on the ground
that the allegations of huge expenditure in
wedding ceremonies by the informant or
the demand of dowry by the applicants are
absolutely false. The informant had paid
merely
₹1,50,000/-
for
making
arrangements of reception and entire
expenditure of marriage ceremony and the
reception was incurred by applicant Nos.1
and 2, which is supported by plenty of
evidence including the videograph and
photographs of the ceremonies. It has
further been contented that the applicant
No.2 and 3 had demonstrated expenditure
of
more
than
₹15,00,000/-
to
the
investigating officer with support of
documentary and electronic evidence but
the investigating officer has not made the
same a part of the case diary or the charge
sheet.

6. It has further been stated in the
application that the applicant No.1 had filed
a suit for divorce, which was pending at the
time of filing of the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, during
pendency of the application, HMA Suit
No.314 of 2016 filed by applicant No.1
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act was decreed by the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah by
means of judgment dated 21.10.2021.
Surbhi Tiwari, wife of applicant No.1 has
filed First Appeal No.936 of 2021, which is
pending consideration of this Court sitting
at Allahabad.

7. A Supplementary affidavit has been
filed on behalf of applicants annexing
therewith a copy of the judgment dated
21.10.2021 passed by Additional Principal
Judge, Etawah decreeing the suit for
divorce filed by applicant No.1, the
evidence of defendant in that suit and the
statement of the informant recorded in that
suit.

8. The Superintendent of Police,
District Amethi has filed a counter affidavit
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 09.06.2022 replying to the contention
of the applicants in the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. that they had provided
documentary evidence of the expenditure to
the
investigating
officer.
The
Superintendent of Police has stated that the
applicant has not given any evidence to the
investigating officer.

9. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
applicants have stated that they had given
(i) a copy of an email sent by the
informant's daughter to the applicant no.1
admitting her illicit relation with some
other person; (ii) a copy of legal notice
dated 08.06.2016; (iii) copies of emails sent
by applicant No.1 to the informant (iv)
recording of mobile chats dated 20.10.2015
between the applicant and informant's wife
(v) screenshots of Karva Chauth and other
ceremonies, (vi) email chats between the
informant's daughter and the person with
whom she allegedly having illicit relations,
email chats between applicant No.1 and
informant's daughter and phone details.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that there was a categorical
assertion that the applicants had supplied
documentary evidence referred to above to
the investigating officer of the case and the
counter affidavit has been filed by the
Superintendent of Police, who was not the
investigating
officer.
Therefore,
the
Superintendent of Police had no personal
knowledge of the documents having been
supplied
by
the
applicants
to
the
investigating officer and his refusal is
meaningless.

11. The second submission of the
learned counsel for the applicants is that the
applicant No.1 had filed a suit for divorce,
which has already been decreed. The
Family Court had framed two charges; (i)
whether the plaintiff (applicant No.1) was
entitled to get a decree of divorce ? and (ii)
whether he was entitled to any other relief ?

12. While deciding issue No.1, the
Family Court held that the allegation that
the informant's daughter had been beaten
up by the applicant No.1 and his family
members on 21.12.2015 and was turned out
of the matrimonial home, could not be
established and informant's daughter had
herself left her matrimonial home on
20.12.2015. The Family Court further
observed that there are contradictions made
by the informant's daughter regarding
dowry,
which
makes
the
allegation
suspicious.

13. The learned counsel for the
applicants has further submitted that
aforesaid findings recorded in the final
judgment passed by the Family Court prove
that the allegation in the FIR that the
applicants had turned out the informant's
daughter out of her matrimonial home after
beating her on 21.12.2015 is false.
Therefore, continuance of the criminal
proceedings instituted on the basis of false
allegations, would be an abuse of the
process of the law and proceedings are
liable to be quashed.

14. The informant's daughter has field
First Appeal No. 963 of 2021 before this
Court sitting at Allahabad challenging the
judgment/decree dated 21.10.2021 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Etawah
dissolving her marriage with applicant
No.1. On 29.11.2021, an interim order was
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
the aforesaid case staying the effect and
operation of the decree dated 21.10.2021.
However, the interim order was vacated by
means of the order dated 08.02.2023 after
noting submissions of the learned counsel
2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1179
for the appellants that the appellant No.1
has performed a second marriage and the
Court was of the view that at this stage, the
interim order cannot be extended.

15. Per contra, Sri S. K. Singh, the
learned counsel for opposite party No.2,
has submitted that the investigating officer
had not made the defence evidence a part
of case diary, is no ground to challenge the
charge-sheet, cognizance and summoning
order and the proceedings of the case.

16.

Regarding
effect
of
the
observations made in the suit for divorce,
the learned counsel for the opposite party
No.2 has submitted that the findings of the
Family Court recorded in the Civil suit,
will not bind the criminal court while trying
the accused persons for commission of
cognizable offence as the scope of civil and
criminal proceedings are entirely different.

17. The learned Counsel for the
applicants
have
supplied
written
submissions wherein it has been stated that
although the FIR alleges that the accused
persons assaulted Surabhi on 21.11.2015
and left her near her father's home, in her
cross examination recorded in the divorce
suit, she has admitted that no harassment or ill
treatment was done against her on 21.12.2015.
The complainant has also admitted that on the date
of the alleged incident, his daughter was not at
Noida and she was with him at Amethi. The
judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Family
Court decreeing the suit for divorce filed by the
applicant no. 1 records a finding that Surabhi was
not turned out of her matrimonial home on
21.12.2015 and no communication was made
between the parties on 20.12.2015. The Family
Court has found the allegations to be false.

18. The learned Counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Musstt Rehana Begum v. State of Assam,
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 82. In that case, the
second respondent had filed a complaint stating
that he and the appellant got married on
11.01.1996 but later on she came to know that the
appellant was previously married to another
person. According to the complaint, the appellant
has committed an offence punishable under
Section 495 of the IPC since she concealed the
fact that she had a subsisting marriage when she
married the second respondent. The appellant had
lodged a complaint under Section 498A of IPC.
The second respondent claimed that his earlier
marriage had been dissolved by a divorce on
18.08.2011. On 17.09.2011, the appellant
instituted proceedings before the Principal Judge
of Family Court - I, Kamrup to challenge the
purported divorce. By a judgment dated
20.07.2017, the Family Court declared the divorce
purportedly given by the second respondent to the
appellant as null and void. A Complaint Case
under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 34 of IPC was
registered on 11.09. 2015, alleging that the second
respondent had produced a forged divorce
certificate. On 16.10.2015, the second respondent
lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant had
committed the offence of bigamy. The appellant
filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC,
which was dismissed by the High Court holding
that it was highly disputed whether the appellant
had entered into a marital tie with another person
prior to the marriage with the complainant and
whether the earlier marriage had ended in a valid
divorce. Moreover, the High Court held that the
appellant had not come up with a specific
case that she was neither married earlier or
that there was a divorce. Allowing the
appeal, the Hon'ble supreme Court held
that: -

"17....As between the appellant and
the second respondent the issue as to
whether she had a subsisting marriage on
the date on which she entered into a
marriage with the second respondent, had
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been conclusively decided by the Family
Court,
which
has
attained
finality.
Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the
Family Courts Act 1984 expressly confers
the Family Court with jurisdiction to
determine the matrimonial status of a
person. Thus, relying on the judgement of
the Family Court which has jurisdiction to
decide the gravamen of the offence alleged
in the criminal complaint, would not be
same as relying on evidentiary materials
that are due for appreciation by the Trial
Court, such as the investigation report
before it is forwarded to the Magistrate.

Therefore, in this case, the Single
Judge of the High Court was not justified in
coming to the conclusion that the issue as
to whether the appellant had a subsisting
prior marriage was a 'highly contentious
matter' which has to be tried on the basis of
the evidence on the record.

19. The only contention raised in
Rehana Begum (Supra) was regarding
whether the appellant was already married
at the time she married the second
respondent and the issue as to whether she
had a subsisting marriage on the date on
which she entered into a marriage with the
second respondent, had been conclusively
decided by the Family Court, which had
attained finality. In the present case, the
complainant alleges harassment of his
daughter for demanding a car, regarding
which a finding can be returned only after
the trial of the criminal case. Therefore,
Rehana Begum, which was decided on the
basis of the peculiar factual background,
would not apply to the present case.

20. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has next relied upon a judgment
in the case of Seth Ramdayal Jat v.
Laxmi Prasad, (2009) 11 SCC 545, in
which it was held that: -

"20.It is now almost well settled
that save and except for Section 43 of the
Evidence Act which refers to Sections 40,
41 and 42 thereof, a judgment of a criminal
court shall not be admissible in a civil suit.
What, however, would be admissible is the
admission made by a party in a previous
proceeding.

21.
The
admission
of
the
appellant was recorded in writing. While he
was deposing in the suit, he was confronted
with the question as to whether he had
admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty of the
charges framed. He did so. Having, thus,
accepted that he had made an admission in
the criminal case, the same was admissible
in evidence. He could have resiled
therefrom or explained away his admission.
He offered an explanation that he was
wrongly advised by the counsel to do so.
The said explanation was not accepted by
the trial court. It was considered to be an
afterthought. His admission in the civil
proceeding was admissible in evidence."

21. There can be no dispute against
the aforesaid proposition of law, but that
judgment was given in an appeal arising
out of an order passed in a Second Appeal
under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code and the question of scope of
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
not involved in that case. It is settled law
that
the
questions
of
admissibility,
relevancy or sufficiency of evidence cannot
be decided while deciding an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

22. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has next relied upon a judgment
in the case of Sardool Singh v. Nasib
Kaur, 1987 Supp SCC 146, in which a
civil suit between the parties was pending
wherein the respondent was contending that
no will had been executed whereas the
2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1181
contention of the appellants was that a will
had been executed by the testator. A case
for grant of probate was also pending. The
civil court was seized of the question as
regards the validity of the will. In view of
these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that: -

"At this juncture the respondent
cannot therefore be permitted to institute a
criminal prosecution on the allegation that
the will is a forged one. That question will
have to be decided by the civil court after
recording the evidence and hearing the
parties in accordance with law. It would
not be proper to permit the respondent to
prosecute the appellants on this allegation
when the validity of the will is being tested
before a civil court."

23. The aforesaid judgment was also
given keeping in view the particular facts of
the case and it does not lay down any general
proposition of law of universal application.
The question of commission of offence under
Section 498-A involved in the present case, is
not directly is issue in the appeal against
divorce decree pending in this Court and,
therefore, the pendency of the appeal will not
give rise to a good ground for quashing of the
criminal proceedings.

24. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has submitted that there are some
contradictions in the testimony of Surabhi
recorded by the Family Court, but the value
of her evidence will have to be assessed by
the trial Court, where she can explain or even
resile from her admission. The evidence
recorded by the Family Court in the divorce
suit, the decree passed wherein is under
challenge in appeal filed before this Court,
cannot give rise to a good ground for
quashing the proceedings without trial.

25. The learned Counsel for the
applicant next submitted that the allegations
leveled in the FIR are false and the informant
has converted the matrimonial disputes into a
criminal case. He has relied upon the
judgments in the case of Abhishek v. State
of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083,
wherein it was observed that: -

"13.Instances of a husband's family
members filing a petition to quash criminal
proceedings launched against them by his
wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin.
Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We
may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, inKahkashan
Kausar alias Sonamv.State of Bihar[(2022) 6
SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal
with a similar situation where the High Court
had refused to quash a FIR registered for
various offences, including Section498AIPC.
Noting that the foremost issue that required
determination was whether allegations made
against the in-laws were general omnibus
allegations which would be liable to be
quashed, this Court referred to earlier
decisions wherein concern was expressed
over the misuse of Section498AIPCand the
increased tendency to implicate relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes. This
Court observed that false implications by
way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the
process of law. On the facts of that case, it
was found that no specific allegations were
made against the in-laws by the wife and it
was held that allowing their prosecution in
the absence of clear allegations against the
in-laws would result in an abuse of the
process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the accused and such an exercise ought to
be discouraged."

26. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has also relied upon a judgment
in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State
of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599. In that case,
the complainant was married to Md. Ikram
on 18.09.2017. She filed a criminal
complaint on 11-12-2017 against her
husband and the appellants, who were her
in-laws, alleging demand for dowry and
harassment. The learned Magistrate found
that upon perusal of material evidence no
prima facie case was made against the inlaws and that the allegations levelled
against them were not specific in nature
and the Magistrate took cognizance for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC
against the husband and summoned him
only. This dispute was eventually resolved
and the complainant came back to the
matrimonial
home.Subsequently,
on
01.04.2019, the complainant lodged an FIR
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498-A
read with Section 34 IPC against her
husband and his relatives alleging that all
the accused persons were pressurising her
to purchase a car as dowry and they
threatened
to
forcibly
terminate
her
pregnancy if the demands were not met. A
Writ Petition filed by the husband and his
relatives for quashing the FIR was
dismissed. In appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to various precedents on the
point and concluded that: -

"17.The abovementioned decisions
clearly demonstrate that this Court has at
numerous instances expressed concern over
the misuse of Section 498-A 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 inlaws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them.

18.Coming to the facts of this case,
upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR
dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general
allegations
are
levelled
against
the
appellants. The complainant alleged that
"all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened
her
of
terminating
her
pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the appellants herein i.e. none of
the appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused
in
furtherance
of
the
offence.
The
allegations are, therefore, general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have
been made out on account of small
skirmishes.
Insofar
as
husband
is
concerned, since he has not appealed
against the order of the High Court, we
have
not
examined
the
veracity
of
allegations made against him. However, as
far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.

19.Furthermore,
regarding
similar
allegations of harassment and demand for
car as dowry made in a previous FIR
Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar,
contends that the present FIR pertained to
offences committed in the year 2019, after
2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1183
assurance was given by the husband Md.
Ikram before the learned Principal Judge,
Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife
herein for dowry, and treat her properly.
However, despite the assurances, all
accused continued their demands and
harassment. It is thereby contended that the
acts constitute a fresh cause of action and
therefore the FIR in question herein dated
1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and
cannot be termed as a repetition of an
earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.

20.Here it must be borne in mind that
although the two FIRs may constitute two
independent instances, based on separate
transactions, the present complaint fails to
establish specific allegations against the inlaws of the respondent wife. Allowing
prosecution in the absence of clear
allegations against the appellant in-laws
would simply result in an abuse of the
process of law.

21.Therefore, upon consideration of
the relevant circumstances and in the
absence of any specific role attributed to
the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if
the appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the
complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by
this Court in varied instances, that a
criminal trial leading to an eventual
acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must,
therefore, be discouraged."

27. Thus in Kahkashan Kausar
(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
taken into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, including the
fact that earlier also an FIR was lodged on
similar allegations, the allegations against
the relatives of the husband could not be
established in investigation and a chargesheet was filed against the husband only
and the complainant had entered into a
settlement and resumed cohabitation with
the husband. The second FIR was lodged
without any specific allegations against the
in-laws of the wife. The husband had not
challenged the FIR. In view of these facts,
it was held that allowing prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the
appellant in-laws would result in an abuse
of the process of law. In the present case, it
is the FIR alleges that the informant had
spent Rs.15,00,000/- in the wedding and
related ceremonies and he had given
Rs.6,00,000/- in cash, besides several other
valuable
articles,
the
applicants
had
claimed that the applicant No.1 had done
MBA from Birmingham University, which
claim turned out to be false, the accused
persons used to harass the informant's
daughter for demanding a car. The accused
persons had beaten up the informant's
daughter on 21.12.2015, took away her
stridhan and dropped her near the house of
the informant in HAL campus at Korba,
Munshi
Gunj,
District
Amethi.
The
husband also seeks quashing of the
proceedings. The ground for quashing is
that the allegations are false and contrary to
the findings recorded by the Family Court.

28. In Taramani Parakh v. State of
M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"10.The law relating to quashing is
well settled. If the allegations are absurd or
do not make out any case or if it can be
held that there is abuse of process of law,
the proceedings can be quashed but if there
is a triable case the court does not go into
reliability or otherwise of the version or the
counter-version. In matrimonial cases, the
courts have to be cautious when omnibus
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations are made particularly against
relatives who are not generally concerned
with the affairs of the couple. We may refer
to the decisions of this Court dealing with
the issue.

11.Referring to
earlier
decisions,
inAmit Kapoorv.Ramesh Chander(2012) 9
SCC 460, it was observed :

"27.1.Though there are no limits of
the powers of the Court under Section 482
of the Code but the more the power, the
more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The
power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases.

27.2.The Court should apply the test
as
to
whether
the
uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a
conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then
the Court may interfere.

27.3.The High Court should not
unduly
interfere.
No
meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing
of charge or quashing of charge.

27.4.Where the exercise of such
power is absolutely essential to prevent
patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even
in such cases, the High Court should be
loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its
inherent powers.

27.5.Where there is an express legal
bar enacted in any of the provisions of the
Code or any specific law in force to the
very
initiation
or
institution
and
continuance of such criminal proceedings,
such a bar is intended to provide specific
protection to an accused.

27.6.The Court has a duty to balance
the freedom of a person and the right of the
complainant or prosecution to investigate
and prosecute the offender.

27.7.The process of the court cannot
be permitted to be used for an oblique or
ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8.Where the allegations made and
as they appeared from the record and
documents
annexed
therewith
to
predominantly give rise and constitute a
'civil
wrong'
with
no
'element
of
criminality' and does not satisfy the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence, the court
may be justified in quashing the charge.
Even in such cases, the court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.

27.9.Another very significant caution
that the courts have to observe is that it
cannot examine the facts, evidence and
materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction;
the court is concerned primarily with the
allegations taken as a whole whether they
will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an
abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.

27.10.It is neither necessary nor is
the court called upon to hold a fullfledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11.Where allegations give rise to a
civil claim and also amount to an offence,
merely
because
a
civil
claim
is
2 All. Rahul Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1185
maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12.In exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 228 and/or under Section
482,
the
Court
cannot
take
into
consideration external materials given by
an accused for reaching the conclusion
that no offence was disclosed or that there
was possibility of his acquittal. The Court
has to consider the record and documents
annexed therewith by the prosecution.

27.13.Quashing of a charge is an
exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be
more inclined to permit continuation of
prosecution rather than its quashing at
that initial stage. The Court is not
expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima facie.

27.14.Where the charge-sheet, report
under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers
from fundamental legal defects, the Court
may be well within its jurisdiction to frame
a charge.

27.15.Coupled with any or all of the
above, where the Court finds that it would
amount to abuse of process of the Code or
that the interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power
is
to
be
exercisedex
debito
justitiaei.e. to do real and substantial
justice for administration of which alone,
the courts exist.

27.16.These are the principles which
individually and preferably cumulatively
(one or more) be taken into consideration
as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Where the factual foundation for an offence
has been laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to quash
the proceedings even on the premise that
one or two ingredients have not been stated
or do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial
compliance
with
the
requirements of the offence.

* * *

14.From a reading of the complaint, it
cannot be held that even if the allegations
are taken as proved no case is made out.
There are allegations against Respondent 2
and
his
parents
for
harassing
the
complainant which forced her to leave the
matrimonial home. Even now she continues
to be separated from the matrimonial home
as she apprehends lack of security and
safety and proper environment in the
matrimonial home. The question whether
the appellant has in fact been harassed and
treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but
at this stage, it cannot be said that no case
is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings
before the trial is not permissible."

(Emphasis Supplied)

29. The learned Counsel for the
applicants
next
submitted
that
the
allegations levelled are false and this fact is
established from documentary evidence,
which has not been made a part of the case
diary in spite of the same having been
provided to the Investigating Officer. He
has further stressed upon the Court that this
contention has not been denied by the
Investigating Officer himself by filing an
affidavit and it has been denied by the
Superintendent of Police.

30. In this regard, it is to be
considered firstly that while deciding an
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking
quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings, this Court is not expected to
consider and scrutinize the material relied
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon in defence and only this much has to
be seen as to whether a case for trial of the
accused is made out by the allegations
levelled in the complaint / FIR and the
material collected by the prosecution
Secondly, the Superintendent of Police is a
responsible
superior
officer
and
his
personal affidavit cannot be doubted by this
Court to the extent that it may give rise to a
ground for quashing of the proceedings.

31. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has also relied upon a judgment
in the case of Rajaram Sharma versus
State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 63 of
2024. In that case, the appeal was allowed
and the proceedings were quashed after
recording a satisfaction that the ingredients
necessary to constitute the offences under
Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC were
not made out, whereas it is not so in the
present case.

32. Daughter of the informant has
filed First Appeal No. 936 of 2021 in this
High Court sitting at Allahabad challenging
the decree of divorce granted by the Family
Court and, therefore, the findings of the
Family Court have not yet attained finality.
Although an interim order dated 29.11.2021
was passed in First Appeal No. 963 of 2021
staying the operation and effect of the
judgment/decree
of
divorce
dated
21.10.2021,
the
appellant
No.1
has
performed a second marriage. When the
entire facts and circumstances of the case
are scrutinized keeping in view this
conduct of the applicant no. 1, in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Taramani Parakh (Supra), it
appears that the uncontroverted allegations
as made from the record of the case prima
facie establish the offence. This Court
cannot take into consideration the materials
relied upon by the accused persons for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was
disclosed or that there was possibility of his
acquittal.