# Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 3716 of 2010 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-04-16 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 3716 of 2010 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anshu-goel-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46373 - **Pages:** 21 ## Headnote Law- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - under Sections 498-A, 427, 506- FIR do not disclose a commission of offence by an individual accused - would be justified to quash the proceedings against him/ her so as to prevent abuse of process of law - No one can be allowed to undergo an ordeal of illegal, malicious or false prosecution and undergo a physical and mental torture so long as such proceedings continue.(Para-50) A First Information Report was lodged by complainant wife against her husband , father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Police after making investigation, submitted chargesheet on 31.03.2010 - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process by summoning applicants and other three accused vide order dated 22.07.2010 - Husband meanwhile filed a divorce petition dated 14.01.2010 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Para-2,3) HELD:- Performance of marriage by itself is no offence and if anyone is relative of one of the spouse who is alleged to be a guilty of offence of dowry, mere relationship should not be a reason to implicate such person in a criminal proceedings - Charge-sheet passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance, issuing process and registering as Case No.1908 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961 as well as subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.(Para-64,67) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7) List Of Cases Cited:- ## Text _Characters 0–39,928 of 69,844. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39928 for what follows._ 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1597 trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. (emphasis added) 26. Above observations have been reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017), decided by Supreme Court on 10.02.2020. 27. Reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner in Pepsi Foods Ltd (supra) on the scope of Section 482 CrPC is also in conformity with law as discussed above. I do not find anything otherwise stated therein or something which is different than what has been discussed above, which may help petitioner in a different manner. No doubt Court said that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, but to suggest that at the cognizance stage, defence evidence can be looked into and assessed on merit or it can be done by this Court when an application under Section 482 CrPC is brought to this Court against order of cognizance/summoning is neither legal nor permissible. This argument is, therefore, rejected. 28. In view of above discussion and facts and circumstances, I do not find that any case has been made out justifying interference at this stage. It cannot be said that no incident has taken place or there is no evidence whatsoever to show that applicants have committed no offence. Hence, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified. 29. Application is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1597 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 3716 of 2010 Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: 1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Saurabh Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Government Advocate, Manish Kumar II (A) Criminal Law- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - under Sections 498-A, 427, 506- FIR do not disclose a commission of offence by an individual accused - would be justified to quash the proceedings against him/ her so as to prevent abuse of process of law - No one can be allowed to undergo an ordeal of illegal, malicious or false prosecution and undergo a physical and mental torture so long as such proceedings continue.(Para-50) A First Information Report was lodged by complainant wife against her husband , father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Police after making investigation, submitted chargesheet on 31.03.2010 - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process by summoning applicants and other three accused vide order dated 22.07.2010 - Husband meanwhile filed a divorce petition dated 14.01.2010 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Para-2,3) HELD:- Performance of marriage by itself is no offence and if anyone is relative of one of the spouse who is alleged to be a guilty of offence of dowry, mere relationship should not be a reason to implicate such person in a criminal proceedings - Charge-sheet passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance, issuing process and registering as Case No.1908 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961 as well as subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.(Para-64,67) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7) List Of Cases Cited:- 1. Ramesh & ors. Vs. St. of T.M., 2005 Crl.L.J. 1732 2. U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police & anr., (2009) Cri.L.J. 2974 3. Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. St. of Jharkhand & anr., 2010 AIR SCW 4975 4. Geeta Mehrotra & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., AIR 2013 (SC) 181 5. Smt. Rani & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. ,2010 (7) ADJ 72 (Ald.) 6. Sunil Kumar Singh & anr. Vs. St. of Bihar & anr.,2006 Cr.L.J. 3527 (Patna) 7. Khuman Chand Vs. St. of Raj. ,1998 Cr.L.J. 1670 8. Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & ors.,2003 Cr.L.J. 2759 9. Lakhwinder Singh Vs. St. of Punjab, 2000 Cr.L.J. 4751 10. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. St. of Bihar & ors.,2019 (6) SCC 107 11. St. of M.P. Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadaun & anr., Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2020 12. St. of Hay. vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 13. Google India Private Ltd. Vs. Visakha Industries & ors., AIR 2020 SC 350 14. Jeffrey J. Diermeier & ors. Vs. St. of W.B. & ors.,, 2010 (6) SCC 243, 15. Som Mittal Vs. St. of Karn., 2008 (3) SCC 753, 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1599 16. Lakshman vs. St. of Karn. & ors,, 2019 (9) SCC 677 17. Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913, 18. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122. 19. M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC 524, 20. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 21. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947 22. Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 23. Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC 424 24. Roshni Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) Scale 152 25. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139 26. U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others, 2000 (3) SCC 745, 27. Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of West Bengal , 2001 SCC 722 28. Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC 465. 29. Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641, 30. Arun Singh and other Vs State of U.P. ,Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017) 31. G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Others , 2000 (3) SCC 693 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by two applicants Smt. Anshu Goel and Sri Ambhuj Goel, both are huband and wife, with a prayer to quash charge-sheet no.38 of 2010 dated 31.03.2010 in Case Crime No.51 of 2010 dated 17.02.2010 and to quash order dated 22.04.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Lucknow taking cognizance, issuing process and registering as Case No.1908 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") and the entire criminal proceedings therein. 2. The First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") was lodged by OP-2 (hereinafter referred to as "OP-2") Smt. Garima Goel, who is wife of Rohit Agarwal and daughter of Gopal Krishna Goel, against accused Rohit Agarwal (husband), Dinesh Chandra Agarwal (father-in-law), Smt. Manjul Agarwal (mother-in-law), Smt. Anshu Goel (sister-in-law i.e. Nanand) and Sri Ambhuj Goel (brother-in-law i.e. Nandoi) at Police Station Vikas Nagar, Lucknow registering as Case Crime No.51 of 2010 dated 17.02.2010, under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961. FIR version actually contained is a copy of complaint made by OP-2 to Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "D.G.P., U.P.") and the allegations contained therein are as under:- ^^fuosnu gS fd esjh 'kknh fnukad 17-22009 dks jksfgr vxzoky iq= Jh fnus'k pUnz vxzoky fuoklh ,&003 CySd xksYM vikVZesV 1⁄4lhfu;j flVhtu lkslkbVh1⁄2 vksesxk&2 ikdsV ;w0ih0&02 xzsVj uks,Mk] xkSre cq) uxj ds lkFk 1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES eaxye xsLV gkml lh&784 flyk uxj y[kuÅ ls lEiUu gqbZ FkhA fnukad 18-2-09 dks fonk gksdj eSa vius llqjky xzsVj uks,Mk vk xbZA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh esjs llqj esjh lkl eatqy vxzoky] uun Jherh va'kq xks;y] uunksbZ Jh vEcqt xks;y] fuoklh Suswee Apartment Flat No.8, 15 Main Road, 17 J.P.Nagar Phase75 Banglore dk Bhd ugha jgkA ijEijk ds vuqlkj yM+dh dh igyh gksyh eSds esa gksrh gS ysfdu esjs lkl llqj ,oa esjs ifr us eq>s gksyh esa ?kj ugha tkus fn;k] tcfd esjs firk us esjs HkkbZ xkSjo ,oa cgu xaqtu dks eq>s ysus ds fy, xzsVj uks,Mk Hkstk Fkk rFkk fnukad 10-03-09 dks esjk Reservation esjs firk th us y[kuÅ ds fy, djkdj Hkstk Fkk 'kknh ds ckn ls gh ;s yksx eq>s ?kj okyks ls Qksu ls ckr ugha djus nsrs Fks rFkk esjs ?kj ls Qksu vkrk Fkk rks ;s yksx e>s crkrs ugha Fks ;k fQj fdlh cgkus ls ?kj okyksa dks Vky nsrs Fks ;k dkV nsrs FksA esjs ikik us tks eksckby e; fle ds Qksu fn;k Fkk mldk fLop vkQ djokdj esjh lkl us j[kok fn;k rFkk ,d fnu jksfgr us esjh lkl ds dgus ij Qksu dk fle o cSVjh fudky dj Qksu iVd dj rksM fn;kA 'kknh ds nwljs fnu gh esjh lkl us eSds ls feys lHkh xgus o muds }kjk fn;s x;s xgus mrjok fy;s FksA esjs uun va'kq xks;y dgrh Fkh fd esjs HkkbZ dh 'kknh 15 yk[k dh Fkh esjs uUnksbZ Jh vEcqt xks;y us dgk fd esjh jksd esa 10 xzk0 dh lksus dh fxUuh feyh Fkh ijUrq rqEgkjs ikik us rks dsoy 5 xzke dh fxUuh nhA esjs llqj eq>ls dgrs Fks fd rqeus vkSj rqEgkjs firk th us fMxzh ihNs ls yh gS] ,slh 'kknh rks QksFkZ Dykl bEiykbZ Hkh ugha djrk gS] tSlh 'kknh rqEgkjs ikik us dh gS] gekjs ;gk QksFkZ Dykl bEiykbZ Hkh lkbfdy] eksVj lkbZfdy nsrs gSa] rqEgkjs ikik dSls Joint Director gSa tks xkMh D;k xkMh dk ifg;k Hkh ugha fn;kA ,d ckj Qzhtj dk s ns[kdj o ilUn dj ds 'kknh dh Fkh] ysfdu bUgs esjs ikik ls dkj ,oa ngst dh dkQh mEehn Fkh tks u iwjh gksus ij ;s mRihM+u djus dk dksbZ ekSdk ugha pwdrs FksA bu yksxksa us eq>s 'kknh ds ckn ls 5 eghus rd] eka cki] HkkbZ] cgu ds lkFk dqN fnu rd jgus ds fy, ugha Hkstk rFkk ges'kk budk iz;kl jgk fd esjh ckr esjs eSds okys ls u gksus ik;sA eSa July ekg ls vius eSds esa gwa ysfdu ;s lHkh yksx eq>s fonk djkus ugha vk jgs gSaA 'kknh ds fnu gh lqcg esjs uUnksbZ us :0 5539@& dh iphZ nh ,oa esjs llqj us :0 47391@& dk psd fy;kA esjs firk th us 55000@& uxn esjs uUnksbZ dks ns fn;k] ,s psd fp0 jksfgr vxzoky ds uke dk bu yksxksa us fy;k Cheque No. 04110 HSBC Lko dk gS tks fd fnukad 22- 2-09 dks esjs ikik ds [kkrs ls [kkfjt gqvkA 1⁄455391&00 dh iphZ dh QksVks dkih] ,oa ikik ds A/C ls [kkfjt jksfgr vxzoky ds uke ls mijksDr Cheque ds Statement dh QksVks izfr layXu gS 1⁄2 vr% esjk fuosnu gS fd mijksDr dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ djokdj dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA** 3. Police after making investigation, submitted charge-sheet no.38 of 2010 dated 31.03.2010. Thereupon Magistrate took cognizance and issued process by summoning applicants and other three accused as named above vide order dated 22.07.2010. 4. It is further pleaded by applicants that a divorce petition dated 14.01.2010 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") was also filed by Rohit Agarwal, husband of OP-2, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautambudh Nagar which was presented in the Court on 24.02.2010. In order to harass applicants, OP-2 subsequently filed aforesaid report on the basis of false and incorrect facts, hence, entire proceedings are malicious and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are brother-in-law i.e. Nandoi and sister-in-law i.e. Nanand of OP-2. They are not residing with other 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1601 accused persons since after marriage of applicant-1 with applicant-2. They are residing at Bangalore. Allegations levelled against applicants are patently false. It is said that applicant-2 Ambhuj Goel is a software engineer working at HCL Technologies, Bangalore since March, 2009 and stayed there till 12.07.2009. In FIR itself, address of husband of OP-2 and her father and mother-in-law have been given as A-OO3 Black Gold Apartment (Senior Citizen Society) Omega-2 Pocket U.P.-02, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar and address of applicants has been given as Suswee Apartment, Flat No.8, 15 Main Road, 17 J.P. Nagar, Phase-5, Bangalore which shows that applicants were residing at a different place, hence, there was no occasion on their part to harass and commit cruelty or torture upon OP-2 as stated in the FIR and the entire proceedings are vitiated in law and wholly malicious. 6. It is further said that the only allegations made against applicants are that applicant-1 used to comment that in the marriage of her brother, 15 lakhs were settled and applicant-2 used to comment that he got 10 gram gold coin but father of OP-2 gave a gold coin of only 5 gram. There is no allegation so as to attract offences under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961 and, hence, entire proceedings are vitiated in law, malicious, illegal and liable to be set aside. Sri Saurabh Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the judgements of Supreme Court in Ramesh and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 Crl.L.J. 1732; U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Another (2009) Cri.L.J. 2974; Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another 2010 AIR SCW 4975 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another AIR 2013 (SC) 181. He has also relied on certain judgements rendered by Single Judges of different High Courts in Smt. Rani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2010 (7) ADJ 72 (Ald.); Patna High Court's decision in Sunil Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2006 Cr.L.J. 3527 (Patna); Rajasthan High Court's decision in Khuman Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr.L.J. 1670; Delhi High Court's decision in Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and Others 2003 Cr.L.J. 2759 and Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Lakhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2000 Cr.L.J. 4751. 7. Besides, applicants have also filed a Misc. Application with a request to accept on record judgement dated 05.02.2016 passed by Sri Suresh Chand, IVth Family Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Matrimonial Suit No.0001077 of 2013, Rohit Agarwal Vs. Smt. Garima Goel passing a decree of divorce under Section 13 of Act, 1955; and, order dated 28.08.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 20 of 2016, Smt. Garima Goel Vs. Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another to show that judgement of Principal Judge Family Court is pending in appeal before this Court. 8. Sri Manish Kumar II, learned counsel for OP-2 has contended that charge-sheet has been submitted by police after making investigation and collecting evidence during investigation and on that basis cognizance has been taken by Magistrate. At this stage, defence of accused persons and their evidence neither was before Court below nor in the 1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such defence of accused persons can be looked into by this Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence whatsoever and proceedings are malicious which again is a question of fact and can be decided after evidence is adduced before Trial Court, hence, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified in the present case. 9. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State supports and adopts the arguments of learned counsel for Informant/OP-2. 10. In the present case, stage at which applicants have come before this Court is when charge-sheet was submitted by police after investigation and thereupon Magistrate took cognizance and issued process summoning accused applicants along with three accused persons for trial for the offence under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded by Trial Court at the stage when applicants have come to this Court to challenge charge-sheet, order of cognizance and process. 11. Scope of judicial review at this stage to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited. If allegations contained in FIR taken to be true, and evidence collected by police is looked into, can it be said that offences under aforesaid Sections in respect whereof cognizance has been taken and process has been issued, are not made out only the Court would interfere otherwise not. Scope of judicial review in such matters has been laid down by Supreme Court time and again and it would be fruitful to have a retrospect of some authorities on the subject. 12. At the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Supreme Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others 2019 (6) SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1603 evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) 13. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadaun and another) decided vide judgment dated 31.01.2020. 14. The principles which justify interference by Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been laid down in various authorities in which Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 is leading precedent and thereafter matter has also been examined by even Larger Benches. 15. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) issue of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been considered and what is laid down therein in paragraph 102, has been repeatedly followed and reiterated consistently. In a very recent judgment in Google India Private Limited Vs. Visakha Industries and Ors., AIR 2020 SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph 102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have been reproduced as under : "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 1604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." (emphasis added) 16. Court has also reproduced note of caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) which reads as under : "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis added) 17. What would be the scope of expression "rarest of rare cases" referred to in para 103 in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , 2010 (6) SCC 243, Court has said that words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing scope of Section 482 CrPC. Those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection. 18. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier (supra) infact referred to an earlier Three Judges' Bench judgment in Som Mittal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) SCC 753, to explain phrase "rarest of rare cases". In Som Mittal (supra), Court also said that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not a rule but exception. Exception is applied only when it is brought to notice of Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be added if trial is allowed to proceed where accused would be harassed unnecessarily or if trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. Whenever question of fact is raised which requires evidence, Courts always said that at pre trial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance taken by 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1605 Magistrate power under Section 482 CrPC would not be appropriate to be utilized, since, question of fact has to be decided in the light of evidence which are yet to be adduced by parties. 19. In Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2019 (9) SCC 677 Court said that it is not permissible for High Court in application under Section 482 CrPC to record any finding wherever there are factual disputes. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Further whether there is any mens rea on part of accused or not, is a matter required to be considered having regard to facts and circumstances and contents of complaint and evidence etc, therefore, it cannot be said pre judged in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 20. In Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913, Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction though wide and expansive has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise would justify by tests specifically laid down in Section itself. In paragraph 14 of judgment, Court said : "14. For interference Under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief." (emphasis added) 21. Court also said that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were Trial Court. Court has only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. For that limited purpose, Court can evaluate material and documents on record but it cannot appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting accused. High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether on reasonable apprehension of evidence, allegations are not sustainable, or decide function of Trial Judge. For the above proposition, Court relied on its earlier authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122. 22. Power under section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if basic ingredients of offfences alleged are altogether absent, criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC 524, Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947, Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. (supra) said that where allegations set out in complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offence. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to clear ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to 1606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES do something which is expressly barred under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take cognizance applying judicial mind only to see whether prima facie case is made out for summoning accused persons or not. At this stage, Magistrate is neither required to consider FIR version nor he is required to evaluate value of materials or evidence of complainant find out at this stage whether evidence would lead to conviction or not. 23. It has also been so observed in Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC 424 and followed recently in Roshni Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) Scale 152. Here Court also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139, wherein paragraph 9, Court said that in determining the question whether any process has to be issued or not, Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not and whether there is sufficient ground for conviction; whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. 24. However, it is also true that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others, 2000 (3) SCC 745, after referring to a decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of West Bengal 2001 SCC 722, Court said : "Legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of complaint without issuing process. There is no such requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed order while issuing summons. Process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that Magistrate had not passed a speaking order." (emphasis added) 25. Same proposition was reiterated in Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC 465. 26. In a Three Judges' Bench in Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641, Court has observed that Section 482 CrPC is prefaced with an overriding provision. It saves inherent power of High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Paragraph 15 of the judgment Court summarized as under : "(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash 3-5 All. Smt. Anshu Goel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1607 Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." (emphasis added) 27. Above observations have been reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017), decided by Supreme Court on 10.02.2020. 28. Now, considering the facts in the light of aforesaid exposition of law, I find that first allegation against applicants is that their behavior was not cordial with applicants. It is not disputed that both the applicants were residing at Bangalore while OP-2 was married to Sri Rohit Agarwal residing at Greater Noida, District 1608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Gautambudh Nagar. Admittedly, marriage of OP-2 with Rohit Agarwal was solemnized on 17.02.2009 at Lucknow but thereafter she came to reside with Rohit Agarwal at his residence at Greater Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar and was residing thereat. The second allegation against applicant-1 is that she used to said that his brother's marriage was of 15 lakh and applicant-2 said that in his engagement, he got 10 gram gold coin while father of OP-2 gave gold coin only of 5 gram. The third allegation against applicant-2 is that he gave a slip of Rs.5539/- and father of Informant-OP-2 gave Rs.55,000/- cash to him. 29. Police recorded statement of Informant-OP-2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-6 wherein FIR version has been reiterated. Some more facts in respect of other accused persons have been stated but there is no change by way of addition, alteration or modification in respect of allegations made against applicants in the FIR. 30. Statement of father of OP-2 is Annexure-7 to the affidavit who has made a general allegation that applicants and other accused persons used to harass and torture OP-2 and left no occasion to make comments for bringing less dowry in the marriage. He did not make any statement that he paid any amount of cash to applicant-2. 31. Statement of Smt. Kumkum Goel, mother of OP-2 is Annexure-8 to the affidavit and here also, I find that general allegation of harassment has been made against applicants along with other accused persons and there is no averment that any amount was paid to applicant-2 in cash by husband of Smt. Kumkum Goel i.e. Gopal Krishna Goel. 32. The statement of OP-2 is that applicant-1 said that marriage of her brother was of Rs.15 lakh and applicant-2 said that father of OP-2 gave a gold coin of 5 gram though applicant-2 receives in his marriage a gold coin of 10 grams. This statement is of no consequences. Mere comment or taunt, cannot amount to a cruelty as to attract 498-A IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Act, 1961. Even if the allegations of Rs.55,000/- paid cash by father of OP-2 is treated to be correct but it is not stated anywhere that applicant-2 has demanded any dowry and said dowry was paid to him. The assertion is that he gave a slip of Rs.5539/- and their payment was made. It appears to be some payment towards some expenses. 33. Taking the aforesaid averments to be correct and also considering the fact that applicant-1 has married with applicant-2 long back, they had a 7 year old son, and residing at Bangalore for several years and no specific date and time of their presence at Greater Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar has been mentioned, I find that apparently offences under Sections 498-A, 427, 506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Act, 1961 are not made out. 34. We now proceed to examine the above sections in detail. First of all, I propose to consider Section 498-A IPC which reads as under:- 35. Section 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--