# Vishram & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 764
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 22789 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50018
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

F.I.R. lodged after delay -allege dowry deathunder section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot
examine the correctness of the allegations-to be
decided by the Trial court-power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
to be exercised in exceptional cases-death
within seven years of marriage-unnatural deathat in law's place.

Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21(v). Certainly there is delay in
lodging the FIR but it appears that since
proceedings under Sections 107, 116 and
151 CrPC had been initiated by the
concerned police and opposite party no.2
would have been busy in his treatment and
getting the legal recourse in respect of
Sections 107, 116 and 151 CrPC hence
mere delay in lodging the FIR is not the
sole
ground
to quash
the
case
of
prosecution. Hence, this argument is also
rejected.

22. On the basis of above discussion
this Court is of the view that there is no
material substance in the argument of the
applicants. After lodging the FIR, the I.O. has
submitted the charge sheet under Sections
323, 504 and 308 IPC. The witnesses have
supported the prosecution version which has
also been corroborated by the medical
evidence. On the one hand where the police is
not showing any injury to either of the parties
even to applicant no.1, Bindu also, on the
other hand applicant no.1, Bindu himself
accepts that injuries had been caused to him
and the I.O. of the concerned police station is
admitting that an attempt to cause homicidal
death has been committed by the applicants.

23. Criminal proceedings, charge
sheet and the cognizance order cannot be
cancelled lightly and inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised if
Court does not find that the charge-sheet
and the entire criminal proceeding is the
abuse of process of Court or there is any
need to secure the ends of justice or there is
any necessity to give effect to any order
under the Code by implication of Section
482 CrPC.

24. The present petition under Section
482 CrPC is devoid of merit. Justice
requires complete trial of the matter to
ascertain the truth. Hence, the present
petition is dismissed
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 764
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2023

BEFORE

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

Application U/S 482. No. 22789 of 2022

Vishram & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Saurabh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

F.I.R. lodged after delay -allege dowry deathunder section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot
examine the correctness of the allegations-to be
decided by the Trial court-power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
to be exercised in exceptional cases-death
within seven years of marriage-unnatural deathat in law's place.

Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Haryana & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. reported
in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335

2. Ramveer Upadhyay & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396

3. St. of Andhra Pradesh Vs Gourishetty Mahesh
& ors. (2010) 11 SCC 226

4. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun. AIR 1960 SC
866

5. SC 866 & St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.) 426
4 All. Vishram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
765
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel for the applicants today in
the Court, is taken on record. Office is
directed to register the same.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak,
learned A.G.A. for the State as well as
perused the entire material available on
record.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the summoning
order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Complaint
Case No.1087 of 2021 (Awadhesh vs.
Avanish & Others), under Sections 304B,
342 IPC, Police Station-Ushait, DistrictBudaun, pending before the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

4. As per the prosecution case, an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved on 08.01.2021 by brother of
the deceased against the applicants and
three others alleging therein that the
marriage of his sister was solemnized
with
applicant
no.2
(Avanish)
on
26.06.2018 according to Hindu Rites and
Rituals and the family members of the
opposite party no.2 had given dowry as
per their capacity, but the deceased was
being harassed for non-fulfilment of
additional dowry demand. On 31.12.2020
at about 03:00 p.m., an information was
received by the informant/opposite party
no.2 from the villager that the deceased
was done to death by her in-laws. On
receiving the information, when the
informant, his father Naresh and brother
Ramesh reached at in-laws' place, they
were
wrongly
confined
by
family
members of the in-laws of the deceased
and without informing the police, the last
rites were performed. It is also alleged
that the deceased was done to death for
non-fulfilment
of
additional
dowry
demand. Thereafter, the informant went
to the concerned police station for
lodging the FIR, but no attention was
paid, therefore, the present complaint has
been filed. Subsequently, after recording
the statements under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been
summoned.
Hence,
the
present
application U/s 482 has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the applicants are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present
case due to the reasons best known to him.
He further submits that the complaint has
been lodged after a delay of about eight
days of the incident without giving any
plausible explanation for the same. The
allegations as made in the complaint are
false and frivolous against the applicants
because the deceased died a natural death
as she was suffering from some ailment for
which document has been annexed as
Annexure No.7 to the affidavit. He further
submits that father and other family
members of the deceased as well as the
police were present at the time of
cremation, video has been recorded,
however,
after
participating
in
the
cremation, the present complaint has been
lodged in order to harass the applicants
though the deceased died a natural death.
He further submits that no offence against
the applicants is disclosed and the present
prosecution has been instituted with a mala
fide intention for the purpose of causing
harassment.
He
pointed
out
certain
documents and statements in support of his
contention. He, therefore, submits that the
summoning order as well as entire
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings be quashed by this Court as the
same is an abuse process of Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the applicants by
submitting that the applicant nos.1&2 are
the father-in-law and husband of the
deceased respectively. The death of the
victim was within seven years from her
marriage. She has died in her in-laws'
house and it was unnatural death. She was
subjected to cruelty due to non fulfilment
of demand of dowry. He further submits
that the document annexed at page 81 of
the application goes to show that the
applicants have returned the belongings of
the deceased as well as gifts, which are
given at the time of marriage, which goes
to show that there were some disputes
between the parties and after death of the
deceased in order to save their skin, the
applicants have returned the aforesaid
things. From the documents regarding
treatment, it cannot be analyzed as to
whether the deceased was suffering from
such serious disease which resulted in her
death. He further submits that there are
specific allegations against the applicants in
the complaint as well as statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further
submits that all the contentions raised by
the applicants' counsel relate to disputed
questions of fact. From perusal of the
records, prima facie, it can not be said at
this stage that no offence has been
committed by the applicants.

7. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
present application.

8. All the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicants relate to
disputed questions of fact. The court has
also been called upon to adjudge the
testimonial worth of prosecution evidence
and evaluate the same on the basis of
various intricacies of factual details, which
have been touched upon by learned
counsel. The veracity and credibility of
material furnished on behalf of the
prosecution has been questioned and false
implication has been pleaded.

9. In exercise of power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegations
in a complaint, except, in exceptionally rare
cases where it is patently clear that the
allegations are frivolous or do not disclose
any offence. The Court can not look into
the fact as to whether the allegations in the
complaint are true or untrue and the same
has to be decided by the trial court, thus no
interference is required in such cases as the
present one. Even though, the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C.,
to
interfere
with
criminal
proceedings is wide, such power has to be
exercised
with
circumspection,
in
exceptional
cases.Jurisdiction
under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be
exercised for the asking.

10. The aforesaid has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported
in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment 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
4 All. Vishram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
767
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."

11. The following observations has
also been made by the Apex Court in the
latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay &
another vs. State of U.P. & another
reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396.
Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-

"39. In our considered opinion
criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in
the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the
complaint has been lodged by a political
rival. It is possible that a false complaint
may have been lodged at the behest of a
political
opponent.
However,
such
possibility would not justify interference
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
the criminal proceedings. As observed
above, the possibility of retaliation on the
part of the petitioners by the acts alleged,
after closure of the earlier criminal case
cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the
complaint constitute offence under the
Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are
true or untrue, would have to be decided in
the trial. In exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does
not examine the correctness of the
allegations in a complaint except in
exceptionally rare cases where it is
patently clear that the allegations are
frivolous
or
do
not
disclose
any
offence............."

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty
Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC
226 has held that though the powers
possessed by the High Court under Section
482 CrPC are wide, however, such powers
require care/caution in its exercise. The
interference must be on sound principles
and the inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
It was clarified that if the allegations set out
in the complaint do not constitute the
offence of which cognizance has been
taken by the Magistrate, it was open to the
High Court to quash the same in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

13. In fact while exercising the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under
Section 226 of the Constitution of India the
quashing of the complaint can be done only
if it does not disclose any offence or if
there is any legal bar which prohibits the
proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court
decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported
in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of
law in this regard clear recognizing certain
categories by way of illustration which may
justify the quashing of a complaint or
charge sheet.

14. In the instant case, perusal of the
complaint as a whole, this Court finds that
the death of the victim was within seven
years from her marriage. She has died in
her in-laws' house and it was unnatural
death. She was subjected to cruelty due to
non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The
Court also finds it difficult to hold that a
case, for quashing of the complaint under
Section 482 CrPC, has been made out.
Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in
the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC only because the
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliant has been lodged by malicious
intention. In exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegations
in a compliant except in exceptionally rare
cases where it is patently clear that the
allegations are frivolous or do not disclose
any offence. The compliant before the
learned Magistrate is not such a case which
should be quashed at the inception without
further trial.

15. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that the present matter does not fall in any
of the categories recognized by the Apex
Court, which might justify interference by
this
Court
in
order
to
quash
the
proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for
quashing the summoning order as well as
the
entire
proceedings
of
aforesaid
complaint case is refused as I do not see
any abuse of the court's process either.

16. The present application lacks
merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 768
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23735 of 2022
connected with
Application U/S 482. No.13494 of 2021

Sayed Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Atul Sharma, Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma,
Sri Kartikeya Saran
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad

Concealment
of
fact-Applicant
earlier
approached the Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing summoning order and charge-sheetfiled another Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of one revisional order-then he went
before
Apex
Court
for
expediting
the
proceedings of the Application- further filed an
Application in pending Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to dismiss it with liberty to file better
petition-did not wait for logical conclusion of any
one petition-Criminal revision was not filed with
full disclosure-act of concealment-Application
rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav Vs Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society : (2013) 11
SCC 531

2. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu :
(2013) 9 SCC 199

3. Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs St. of W.B. : (2022) 7
SCC 124

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. The present two applications under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are connected together
as they are of the same accused in the same
case and as such are being decided together
by a common judgement.

2. The applicant Sayeed Ahmad
initially filed a Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021
(Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
another) with the following prayers :-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow this
application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and
quash
the
charge-sheet
dated
23.06.2019 as well as summoning order