# Smt. Begum and another v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 740
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-04-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.5779 of 1999
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-begum-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-another-40650
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing of charge sheet and Criminal
2 All] Smt. Begum and another V. State of U.P. and another
741
proceeding-offence under Section 498A,304-B, 201 I.P.C.-Trail of husband
separated
from
the
applicant-the
mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
acquittal of husband at deceased the
stage
of
framing
charges-evidence
produced
in
case
of
husband
and
applicant are common-deceased died
due to prolong illness being a case of
natural death-if the applicants relegated
to the Trail Court to raise objection-on
the basis of acquittal at the stage of
framing charges-held-against the dictum
of
Apex
Court-will
amount
to
harassment-charge sheet along with
criminal proceedings quashed.

Held: Para 6

In the circumstances, I agree with the
argument
of
the
counsel
for
the
applicants that in case the applicants are
relegated to the trial court to raise
objection on the basis of acquittal at the
stage of framing of the charge, it is
against the dictum of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra
Nath Padhi. It is also noteworthy that
since the husband has been acquitted by
the trial court for the reason that all the
witnesses have been declared hostile
and a finding has been recorded that the
deceased died due to prolonged illness
and it was a natural death, it is obvious
that the fate of the trial of the present
applicants will be the same and the
proceedings if allowed to continue, will
amount to harassment of the present
applicants, no good result can come out
even if the applicants are permitted to
stand the trial. Since the Apex Court has
said that the proceedings could be
quashed if the material is produced
before the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code or 226 of the Constitution is of such
a sterling quality and unimpeachable
character then the Court is well within
its right to quash the proceedings.
Case law discussed:
1996 (9) SCC-766
AIR 2005 SC-359

## Text

740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the report to the Commandant, who was
compelled under the said rule to record
his findings and pass order.

3. The Commandant, Mr. R.C. Puri,
recorded findings flatly contradctory to
the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He
held that the articles of the charges have
been proved against Zakir Hussain, that
he
failed
to
reply
the
official
correspondence and that he was thus
guilty beyond any shadow of doubt. The
Inquiry Officer, Baisoya, had also noted
that Zakir Hussain had not received the
letter of E/66 as he had gone to see his
father in Calcutta.

4. The Supreme Court has laid down
in the case of Punjab National Bank and
others Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported
at (1998) 7 SCC 84 and also in the case of
the State Bank of India and others Vs.
K.P. Narayanan Kutty, reported at (2003)
2 SCC 449 that where the disciplinary
authority
empowered
to
impose
punishment proposes to differ radically
from the report given by the fact finding
Inquiry Officer then and in that event,
even if the concerned rule does not
specifically require so, the punishment
imposing authority is bound once again to
hear the delinquent officer and he has to
be given a second opportunity to defend
both himself and the favourable report
which he has obtained from the Inquiry
Officer.

5. It is absolutely iniquitous as held
by the Supreme Court, for the disciplinary
authority to reverse a favourable finding
behind the back of the person who is to
suffer final and heavy civil consequences.
On the basis of this legal reason, the order
under appeal is set-aside. The order of the
Inquiry Officer, C.B. Baisoya, will remain
on the record and shall not be interfered
with in any manner. The order of the
Commandant, R.C. Puri, dated 19th
December, 1992 is cancelled and setaside. The Commandant now in charge
and jurisdiction will re-decide the matter
on the basis of Balsoy's report and in
accordance with law as indicated above.

6. Until such decision is given, the
writ petitioner-appellant shall be treated
to be in service and shall be allowed to
serve and draw pay; unless any adverse
finding is recorded against the writ
petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date hereof, it will be deemed
that the Commandant has not reversed the
finding of exoneration given by Baisoya
and in that event all the arrears of the writ
petitioner-appellant will be paid to him
within three weeks thereafter.

7. The special appeal is allowed
accordingly. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 15.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.5779 of
1999

Smt. Begum and another
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anurag Khanna

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

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing of charge sheet and Criminal
2 All] Smt. Begum and another V. State of U.P. and another
741
proceeding-offence under Section 498A,304-B, 201 I.P.C.-Trail of husband
separated
from
the
applicant-the
mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
acquittal of husband at deceased the
stage
of
framing
charges-evidence
produced
in
case
of
husband
and
applicant are common-deceased died
due to prolong illness being a case of
natural death-if the applicants relegated
to the Trail Court to raise objection-on
the basis of acquittal at the stage of
framing charges-held-against the dictum
of
Apex
Court-will
amount
to
harassment-charge sheet along with
criminal proceedings quashed.

Held: Para 6

In the circumstances, I agree with the
argument
of
the
counsel
for
the
applicants that in case the applicants are
relegated to the trial court to raise
objection on the basis of acquittal at the
stage of framing of the charge, it is
against the dictum of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra
Nath Padhi. It is also noteworthy that
since the husband has been acquitted by
the trial court for the reason that all the
witnesses have been declared hostile
and a finding has been recorded that the
deceased died due to prolonged illness
and it was a natural death, it is obvious
that the fate of the trial of the present
applicants will be the same and the
proceedings if allowed to continue, will
amount to harassment of the present
applicants, no good result can come out
even if the applicants are permitted to
stand the trial. Since the Apex Court has
said that the proceedings could be
quashed if the material is produced
before the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code or 226 of the Constitution is of such
a sterling quality and unimpeachable
character then the Court is well within
its right to quash the proceedings.
Case law discussed:
1996 (9) SCC-766
AIR 2005 SC-359
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A.

2. Notices were issued to the
opposite party no. 2 and office report
dated 28.4.2005 shows that it has been
returned back after service. The opposite
party no. 2 has not put in appearance
despite notices having been served. In the
circumstances, I proceed to decide this
application finally.

3. The applicants Smt. Begum and
Rukhsana are mother-in-law and sister-inlaw respectively. The son of the applicant
no. 1 Shah Alam was married to Smt.
Gulshan daughter of the opposite party
no. 2 on 23.4.1998. Smt. Gulshan died on
10.6.1999. It has been submitted on
behalf of the applicants that the death was
due to prolonged illness and all the family
members participated in her funeral.
However, a first information report was
lodged against the applicants and husband
Shah Alam, under Section 498-A, 304B,201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act. The case was registered at case
Crime No. 14 of 1999. A copy of the
F.I.R. has been annexed as Annexure-2 to
the affidavit. The trial of the husband
Shah Alam was separated from the
applicants and it proceeded as Sessions
Trial No.889 of 1999 in the court of
VIIIth Additional Session Judge, Meerut.
The trial ended in an acquittal and
judgment was passed on 23.10.1999. A
copy of the judgment has been annexed as
Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The argument
on behalf of the applicants is that since
the husband has been acquitted, the
charge sheet and proceedings arising out
of the same case crime number is liable to
be quashed.
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

4. I have gone through the judgment
passed in Sessions Trial No. 889 of 1999
and on perusal of the same, it appears that
all the witnesses produced by the
prosecution were declared hostile and the
learned
Sessions
Judge
passed
the
judgment of acquittal coming to a
conclusion that Smt. Gulshan died on
account of illness and not in any abnormal
circumstances, as such a clear order of
acquittal was recorded. After hearing
counsel for the applicants and learned
A.G.A., it is evident that the police has
submitted a charge sheet against the
present applicants which is sought to be
quashed in this application arising out of
same F.I.R. in respect of which a
judgment of acquittal has been passed in
favour of the husband. In fact the
evidence, which was produced in the
Sessions Trial No. 889 of 1999, is
common in the case of the applicants vide
case
No.13723/9/99.
Previously
the
sessions court could consider the defence
evidence at the stage of framing of the
charge and if the court was of the view
that there are sufficient grounds which
goes to show that eventually the trial will
end into an order of acquittal, the court
could discharge. The position is not the
same, the Apex Court has overruled the
decision in the case of Satish Mehta Vs.
Delhi Administration (1996) 9, SCC
766. It was ruled in the case of Satish
Mehta (Supra) which was the decision of
the two Judges Bench that if the accused
succeeds
in
producing
any reliable
material at the stage of taking cognizance
or framing of charge, which might fatally
effect even the very sustainability of the
case, then the court should look into those
materials. It was ruled that Section 227 of
the Code do enable the court to decide
whether it is necessary to proceed to
conduct the trial, meaning thereby the
accused was not debarred from showing
any material which could be said to be a
defence at the stage of framing of the
charge and in case the court was of the
view that the accused were liable to be
discharged on the basis of such material,
it was fully competent to do so.

5. This decision has now been ruled
by three Judges Bench in the case of State
of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,
A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 359. The
Apex Court has very clearly refuted the
argument on behalf of the accused and
held that it would defeat the object of the
court if the accused is permitted to adduce
defence evidence at the stage of Section
227/228 Cr.P.C. It is further said that at
the stage of framing of charge, the
defence of the accused can not be put
forth. This has never been intention of the
law, Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be
understood to mean the hearing of the
submission of the accused on the record
of the case as filed by the prosecution and
document
submitted
therewith
and
nothing more. In the circumstances, at the
stage of framing of the charge, the
judgment of acquittal passed in favour of
the husband (Shah Alam) can not be
looked into by the trial court and
therefore, paragraph 29 of the aforesaid
judgment of the Apex Court has been
placed before me to lay emphasis that
while parting with the judgment, the three
Judges Bench of the Supreme Court
observed that in such a case High Courts
can exercise inherent powers. Paragraph
29 is quoted below:-

"Regarding the argument of accused
having to face the trial despite being in a
position
to
produce
material
of
unimpeachable
character
of
sterling
quality, the width of the powers of the
2 All] Prem Krishna Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
743
High Court under Section 482 of the Code
and Article 226 of Constitution of India is
unlimited whereunder in the interests of
justice the High Court can make such
orders as may be necessary to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice
within the parameters laid down in
Bhajan Lal's case."

6. In the circumstances, I agree with
the argument of the counsel for the
applicants that in case the applicants are
relegated to the trial court to raise
objection on the basis of acquittal at the
stage of framing of the charge, it is
against the dictum of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra
Nath Padhi. It is also noteworthy that
since the husband has been acquitted by
the trial court for the reason that all the
witnesses have been declared hostile and
a finding has been recorded that the
deceased died due to prolonged illness
and it was a natural death, it is obvious
that the fate of the trial of the present
applicants will be the same and the
proceedings if allowed to continue, will
amount to harassment of the present
applicants, no good result can come out
even if the applicants are permitted to
stand the trial. Since the Apex Court has
said that the proceedings could be
quashed if the material is produced before
the
High
Court
while
exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
or 226 of the Constitution is of such a
sterling
quality
and
unimpeachable
character then the Court is well within its
right to quash the proceedings.

7. After going through the entire
record, I am of the view that the charge
sheet filed in case Crime No. 145 of 1999
against the present applicants should be
quashed as the Sessions Trial No. 889 of
1999 arising out of the same case crime
number ended into a clear acquittal. The
present charge sheet and proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 13723/9/99 arising out
of case Crime No. 145 of 1999, under
Section 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Jani, District Meerut, pending in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, if
allowed to continue, it is nothing short of
abuse of process of the court and
therefore, in the circumstances, the same
is quashed to meet the ends of justice.

The
application
is
accordingly
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7138 of 2005

Prem Krishna Sriavastava
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Singh Rajpoot

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Civil
Service
RegulationsRegulation-351-A-
Disciplinary
Proceeding-after
retirement-on
the
ground
of
financial
irregularity-after
issuing show cause notice-Disciplinary
proceeding initiated-No prior permission
taken
from
governor-disciplinary
proceeding quashed-direction issued to
release the withheld amount within 3
month failing which 12% interest may
be paid.