Not a Rarest of Rare Case | Uttarakhand High Court Refuses to Quash Dowry Harassment Charges | Says Prima Facie Offence Warrants Trial
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 323, 498-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners, and therefore, interference at the initial stage was unwarranted. The Court further noted that the serious nature of the offences and supporting materials on record necessitated that the applicants face trial to establish the veracity of the allegations. It declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed that the matter proceeds as per law.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by two applicants seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.09.2019, the summoning orders dated 04.02.2020 and 23.03.2022, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 138 of 2021 pending before the Second Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
The applicants challenged the validity of criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged on 27.01.2018 by respondent no.2. According to the complaint, applicant no.2 was married to respondent no.2 on 06.12.2014 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. The complainant alleged that from the very inception of marriage, both applicants subjected her to harassment in connection with unlawful demands of dowry including a flat, a car, and gold bangles.
The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the FIR was founded on concocted and untrue allegations. It was argued that respondent no.2 had portrayed herself as never married on the matrimonial website Shaadi.com, whereas she was a divorcee who had allegedly extracted Rs. 20 lakhs as alimony from her former spouse. The counsel further claimed that the marriage between applicant no.2 and respondent no.2 was solemnized through the said platform, and the FIR was part of a pattern employed by respondent no.2 to harass innocent men and demand money through legal proceedings.
According to the applicants, the couple initially resided in an independent flat. However, respondent no.2 allegedly demanded that they live in a posh colony and frequently quarrelled over the same. During pregnancy, she moved to her maternal home in Kashipur under the pretext of receiving better care and returned after a year. After another brief return, she again left for Kashipur along with their minor son on 01.07.2018, allegedly taking valuables and cash from the house.
Applicant no.2 filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex parte in his favour. In response, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. During cross-examination in those proceedings, respondent no.2 reportedly admitted to receiving Rs. 20 lakhs in alimony from her ex-husband and to portraying herself as never married on Shaadi.com. It was also claimed that she admitted her desire to return only if the applicant bought a house in a posh colony.
The applicants argued that there was no medical evidence of physical cruelty and that the Investigating Officer failed to consider material facts before submitting the charge-sheet. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate issued the summoning order without judicial application of mind.
Although not pleaded in the original application, the applicants’ counsel also advanced that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act were dismissed by the concerned court. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were also allegedly disbelieved and dismissed as far as respondent no.2 was concerned. On this basis, the counsel contended that continuation of criminal proceedings constituted abuse of the judicial process.
Additionally, the counsel questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Kashipur Magistrate by submitting that the alleged acts of cruelty occurred in Ludhiana, Punjab, not in Kashipur, Uttarakhand.
The State’s counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer had conducted a thorough investigation and filed the charge-sheet based on the statements of respondent no.2 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was argued that the Magistrate acted within the bounds of law in taking cognizance and summoning the applicants.
Respondent no.2, in her counter affidavit, maintained that the complaint was based on genuine facts and denied allegations of fabricating charges for financial gain. She claimed that the applicants were interested in the Rs. 20 lakh alimony received by her from her previous marriage and were aware of her status as a divorcee. She stated that applicant no.1 continuously harassed her and made derogatory remarks about her appearance while persistently demanding dowry. She asserted that she had to return to Kashipur due to sustained harassment.
In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants reiterated that respondent no.2 had misrepresented herself on Shaadi.com and argued that both the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings had been dismissed, undermining the basis of the current criminal case.
The Court examined the FIR, charge-sheet, and associated documents. Regarding the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court stated in "it is a settled principle of law that the offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while, the woman is living at her parents’ house, the offence is triable by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed".
"In the instant case in hand it is prima facie evident that mental cruelty was still persisting in respondent no 2’s mind while she was staying at her parental home as the demand for valuables was still being persistently being made by the applicants," the Court recorded.
The Court found that the applicants continued to cause harassment to the complainant even when she resided with her parents. It stated, "Therefore, prima facie it appears that she has been subjected to cruelty at Kashipur within the definition of 'cruelty' given in the explanation of Section 498A I.P.C."
On the issue of multiplicity of proceedings, the Court dismissed the argument that the dismissal of applications under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. rendered the present proceedings an abuse of process. It stated, "Subsection 2 of Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 clearly provides that relief provided under section 12 is without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence. The scope of both the Acts and provisions of IPC are different. The reliefs provided therein are also different."
On the broader issue of judicial interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, observing
"33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection... 33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint... the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness... 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage... 33.15) ...only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not."
The Court stated that since a prima facie case was made out and the allegations involved serious offences, it was not inclined to interfere. It observed, "Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences."
The Court concluded that the offences alleged were of serious nature and the material on record sufficiently disclosed a prima facie case. It stated in clear terms:
"Since, the offences lodged against the applicants are very serious in nature and prima-facie a case is made out against the applicants, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicants should be subjected to a proper trial."
It held that the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings unless the case falls within the rarest of rare category. The Court stated:
"Further the case doesn’t fall in the category of rarest of rare cases so as to compel this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction vested under section 482 Cr.P.C."
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State; Mr. Rachit Manglik and Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel
Case Title: Ravinder Kaur & another v. State of Uttarakhand & another
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application No.734 of 2022
Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit
[Read/Download order]
