Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 9.12.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 8 January, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2025:HHC:2249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 501 of 2021
Reserved on : 9.12.2024
Decided on : 8.1.2025
Gaurav Chaudhary & anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & anr.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? yes
________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood,
Senior Advocate with Mr.
Prashant Sharma, Mr. Ajay
Sipahiya and Mr. Tarun
Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondents :Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.
1/State.
Mr. Ravi Kant Kaushal,
Advocate, for respondent No.
2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioners have filed the present petition,
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C..) for quashing
2 2025:HHC:2249
of FIR No. 298/2020, dated 8.8.2020, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under
Sections 498A, 323, 355, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
‘the IPC‘),with Police Station, Sunder Nagar, District
Mandi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant
thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the trial Court’).
2. The present petition has been filed on the
ground that at the instance of respondent No. 2,
Shalini Chauhan, the FIR in question has been
registered, in which, the Police has conducted
investigation and filed the charge-sheet.
3. After investigation, Police has registered a case
under Section 498-A, 323, 355, 504, 506 and 34 IPC
and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with Police
Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. against
Labh Singh, Meera Devi, Randeep Singh, Deepali,
Gaurav Bhardwaj and Joginder Singh, whereas, case
3 2025:HHC:2249
under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was registered
against one Joginder Singh.
4. The FIR in question was registered at the
instance of respondent No. 2, Shalini Chauhan, who
has alleged that she was married to accused Randeep
Singh, S/o Labh Singh, on 19.4.2019. She has alleged
that after sometime of marriage, she has allegedly
been tortured for bringing less dowry in the hands of
the accused persons. She has further alleged that
accused persons had allegedly told her that they had
borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- and pressurized
her to bring that amount from her parents. As per
respondent No. 2, accused persons used to abuse her,
as well as, her parents. They also used to force her to
go to some Baba. They used to ask her to wake up at
5:00 a.m. to perform the puja of said Baba.
5. She has further alleged that her sister-in-law,
Deepali and her husband Gaurav (petitioners) used to
threaten her. Deepali is alleged to be living in her
parents’ house and used to quarrel with her. It is
further alleged that in-laws of respondent No. 2 used
4 2025:HHC:2249
to threaten her that her brother-in-law is a lawyer and
he will, within no time, manage to get divorce and no
one can raise finger upon them, as they are having
links with the Judges. She has further alleged that on
the eve of Diwali, she was at home and nobody talked
to her. On the occasion of Bhaiya Dooj, when, she
tried to go to her parents, her father-in-law directed
her to bring a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/-, otherwise, there
is no need to come back. When, she returned back,
they asked her to get out of the house. When, she
refused to go from matrimonial home, then, they tried
to throw her out of the house. She was allegedly
beaten by her husband, Randeep Singh. Her father-in-
law abused her and started humiliating her.
5.1 Next day, when, parents of the complainant
visited the matrimonial home of the complainant to
talk to her in-laws, her in-laws started quarreling with
them and also beaten them. However, parents of the
complainant insisted the complainant to be in her
matrimonial home. She has further alleged that when
she had joined her duties in the Bank, then, she
5 2025:HHC:2249
realized that she is not in a position to hear. On
visiting the Doctor, she came to know that there is
clotting in her ear.
5.2 When, on 13.6.2020, she returned to her
matrimonial home, she had not been permitted to
enter the house and her husband directed her to live
in the ground floor. She was directed to complete
domestic chores before 7 a.m. and thereafter, not to
show her face to them. She was directed to prepare
dinner after 8 p.m. According to the complainant, they
also used to switch off the gas. She has further alleged
that on 22.7.2020, her in-laws called her characterless
and also abused her parents. They had allegedly
demanded a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- from her parents.
She has further alleged that she was not permitted to
watch TV after 11:00 p.m. She has further alleged that
the accused persons used to knock at her door at 3:00
a.m. and 4:00 am and used to raise the volume of TV,
just to harass and mentally torture her.
5.3 It has further been alleged by the complainant
that the petitioners used to threaten her to get divorce.
6 2025:HHC:2249
They also used to pass bad comments against her.
According to the complainant, petitioner Deepali also
tried to throw her out of her matrimonial home, by
saying that the house belongs to her. On 8.8.2020,
father of the complainant alongwith her uncle,
allegedly visited her matrimonial home to talk to her
in-laws. However, when the discussion was going on,
after sometime, her husband allegedly got furious.
When, father of the complainant asked the accused
persons about her fault, they directed him to take her
from the matrimonial home and started abusing her.
She has further alleged that her father-in-law had
injured her father by hitting him with a brick. Her
husband also allegedly beaten her father.
5.4 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed
that action be taken against the accused persons.
6. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the FIR
has been registered against the accused persons and
criminal machinery swung into motion. After
completion of investigation, the Police filed the charge-
sheet, as referred to above.
7 2025:HHC:2249
7. Indulgence of this Court has been sought to
quash the FIR against the petitioners, on the ground
that they have nothing to do with the alleged crime, in
which, they have been named, as accused. According
to the petitioners, bare perusal of the Challan does not
make out a case, against the petitioners and they have
simply been involved in the present case, being her
sister-in-law and brother-in-law.
8. According to the petitioners, there is no iota of
evidence, as to how and to what extent, any torture or
harassment was caused by the petitioners to the
complainant. Highlighting the fact that even in the
MLC of the victim, no injury whatsoever was attributed
to the present petitioners, as they were not present on
the spot, the allegations are stated to be bald.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that in case, the
allegations of the complainant are taken as it is, then
also, no offence is made out against the petitioners.
The FIR is also stated to be abuse of process of law.
10. According to the petitioners, if the proceedings
8 2025:HHC:2249
are permitted to continue, then, it would be nothing,
but abuse of process of law.
9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to allow the present petition by quashing the FIR
in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto,
which are stated to be pending, before the learned trial
Court.
10. When, put to notice, the petition has been
contested by the respondent-State by filing reply, in
which, they have asserted the manner, in which, the
FIR in question was registered and the investigation
was conducted. Controverting the stand of the
petitioners, it has been submitted by the respondent-
State that during investigation, the Police found the
involvement of the petitioners, as such, they have
rightly been charge-sheeted, in this case.
11. Respondent No. 2 has filed separate reply by
taking preliminary objections that even if the
allegations, as levelled against the complainant, are
taken as it is, then also, no case is made for quashing
the FIR in question. She has also reiterated the fact as
9 2025:HHC:2249
to how the petitioners had treated her with cruelty, by
highlighting the ‘specific allegations’, against both the
petitioners.
12. By moving Cr.M.P.(M) No. 4129 of 2024, the
petitioners have placed on record certain documents,
i.e. FIR No. 297 of 2020, statement of the complainant,
recorded in Domestic Violence Act, titled as, ‘Shalini
Chauhan versus Randeep Kumar & others’, pending in
the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi,
HP, pleadings of the parties, in Civil Suit No. 11-
1/2023, titled as, ‘Puran Chand & others versus Labh
Singh‘, pending adjudication before the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi,
H.P.
13. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court, by way of filing the present petition, under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of the
FIR registered against them, and the proceedings
resultant thereto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv
Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor,reported in
10 2025:HHC:2249
2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain
directions for exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr. P.C. Relevant paragraphs 28 to 30 are reproduced
as under:
“28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and
rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the
truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is
not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised
on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful
in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be
impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is
so, because it would result in giving finality to the
accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without
allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce
evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however,
not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused
is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The
accused would still be in a position to succeed, by
establishing his defences by producing evidence in
accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments
rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a
case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled
allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s)
levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima
facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled,
trial must be held.
29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution
11 2025:HHC:2249
against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the
stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of
charges. These are all stages before the commencement of
the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The power vested in the
High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages
referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching
consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the
prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution, care
and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be
fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is
such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their
defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and
displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused; and the material produced is such, as
would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the
allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out,
reject and discard the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording
any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the
defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively,
cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and
impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused
should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as
false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High
Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for
that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure
the ends of justice.
12 2025:HHC:2249
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it
cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to
quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested
in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such
a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially
13 2025:HHC:2249when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @
Shakuntala Prajapati versus State of Uttar Pradesh &
anr., reported as (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 549 has
held that if there are bald allegations, but nothing to
justify the same, the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
should be exercised to quash the proceedings. Relevant
paragraphs 14 and 15 are reproduced, as under:
“14. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC
are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has
defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State
of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) 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
14 2025:HHC:2249sufficiently 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.
(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.
15 2025:HHC:2249
(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.”
15. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently
been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three
Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in
Payal Sharma versus State of Punjab & Anr., Citation
No. 2024 INSC 896, has held that there is tendency to
rope in the entire family in the matrimonial dispute. It has
also been held that in case of lack of specific allegations, it
is the duty of the Court to consider the contentions, under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., whether the allegations, so levelled,
against the relatives, make out a prima-facie case, against
them, or not. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment
are reproduced, as under:
16 2025:HHC:2249
“9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of
Jharkhand & Anr.1, this Court observed that it is a matter of
common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is
also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials
lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate
acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the
deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held
therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said
observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution,
against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication
of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the
husband is over implication or whether allegation against
any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial
disputes of this nature. In this context, it is to be noted that
the term ‘relative’ has not been defined in the statute and,
therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly
understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken to include,
father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother,
sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any
individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it
includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In
paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta‘s case (supra) it was
furthermore held thus:-
“The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment
by husband’s close relatives who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
17 2025:HHC:2249complainant are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection.”
10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who
is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when
allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made
in Preeti Gupta‘s case (supra), the Court concerned owes an
irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over
implication and/or whether the allegations against such a
person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken
note of the fact that except the observation made in
paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the
contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order.
11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of
U.P. and Anr. , this Court held that mere casual reference of
the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the matter would
not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the
tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members
of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in
matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after
the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed
proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on
the ground that the allegations against them are general and
ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when
relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged
victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by
merely looking into the question where the accused is a
person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for
the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider
whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated
version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the
main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of
this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein after
18 2025:HHC:2249
considering the statutory provisions and the earlier
decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases
where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could
be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of
Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among
such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against an accused.
12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of
accused No.5 a little later and now, will consider the
challenge of complainant against quashment of the subject
FIR and all consequential proceedings based thereon, qua
accused No.6 bearing in mind the above conclusions and
decisions. It is to be noted that the impugned order itself
would reveal that the learned counsel who appeared for the
complainant admitted before the High Court regarding the
absence of allegations against accused No.6 as relates
offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. This is
discernible from paragraph 6 of the impugned order and it
reads thus:-
“6. Qua Petitioner No.1, Ld. Counsel admits that so
far as Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned, there
are no specific allegations. He asserts that offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 120- B of the
IPC have been added later on and the allegations
levelled against petitioner No.1 shall well fall
within the ambit of Sections 420 IPC and 417 of the
IPC.”
16. In this case, learned counsel for respondent No. 2
has raised objections that arguments of learned senior
19 2025:HHC:2249
counsel appearing for petitioners, qua the fact that entire
family members have been roped-in, in the case, on the
general allegations, is not liable to be considered, as
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are confined only to see
whether a prima-facie case is made out against the
petitioners or not.
17. The arguments of the learned cunsel for
respondent No. 2 are not acceptable in view of a recent
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali &
others versus State of H.P. & others, Citation No. 2023
INSC 684, wherein, it has been held that in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case. Relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the
judgment are reproduced as under:
“12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
20 2025:HHC:2249
We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the
case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances
the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy,
(2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction
between consideration of materials that were tendered as
evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such
21 2025:HHC:2249material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the
FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of the process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC
866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR
p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want
of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
22 2025:HHC:2249adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where
there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal evidence
which, on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would
not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment.
Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta
to harass any person needlessly. At the same time
the section is not an instrument handed over to an
accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring
about its sudden death…..”
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State
of Haryana & anr., reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 343,
have elaborately discussed the powers of this Court under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR, in such type of
23 2025:HHC:2249
cases. Relevant paragraphs 18, 31 to 34 are reproduced as
under:
“18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet
papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First
Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying
no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note
that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged
offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought
fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the
Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR
lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a
counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic
violence case.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to
a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and
should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic
human problem and must make serious endeavour to help
the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best
of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the
Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to
multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized
by the complainant that such complaint can lead to
24 2025:HHC:2249
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close
relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is
also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is
also reflected in a very large number of cases.”
19. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a recent decision in Yashodeep
25 2025:HHC:2249
Bisanrao Vadode versus the State of Maharashtra &
anr., Citation No. 2024 INSC 798. Relevant paragraphs 11
and 12 are reproduced as under:
“11. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to
keep reminded of the observations of this Court in the
decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1. This Court
observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints and the tendency of over implication
is also reflected in a large number of cases.
12. We are of the view that in view of such circumstances,
the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over
implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and
inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”
20. It is a trite law that at the time of exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., correctness of the
allegations should not be dwelled into by this Court, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik B. vs.
Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & anr., reported in 2023 Live
Law (SC) 642.
21. In the FIR in question, respondent No. 2 has
levelled general allegations, without specifying any date,
time or year, when the allegations of threatening to get
the marriage of respondent No. 2 with her husband
dissolved were levelled and when petitioner No. 2 had
26 2025:HHC:2249
levelled the allegations, which according to respondent
No. 2, falls within the character assassination. Whatever
has been alleged against the petitioners is totally vague
and the same does not fall within the definition of ‘specific
allegation’.
22. Moreover, petitioners will not be compelled to face
the trial, on the basis of alleged deposition of mother-in-
law of respondent No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 is a lawyer
and he will get the divorce, within no time and nobody
can raise finger against him.
23. Alongwith the petition, in the statement of
respondent No. 2, recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.,
general allegations have been levelled against the
petitioners that all the accused persons used to taunt her
for not bringing sufficient dowry and on petty matters,
used to torture her mentally. Whatsoever allegations have
been levelled, those were against husband of respondent
No. 2, her mother-in-law and father-in-law, and not
against the petitioners, herein.
24. Similar is the statement made by Smt. Anu, w/o
Sarwan Singh, who has also been examined by the Police
to substantiate the allegations, levelled by respondent No.
27 2025:HHC:2249
2, against the accused persons, including the petitioners.
She has also levelled general allegations, in her statement.
25. In the statements of Jyoti, Raj Kumari, Usha Devi,
Mast Ram, Puran Chand, Shakuntla Devi, Sarvan Singh,
Ram Singh, Sunku Ram and Rajeev Kumar, recorded
under Section 161 Cr. P.C., only general allegations have
been levelled against the petitioners.
26. Considering the stand of respondent No. 2, in her
statement, made to the Police, according to which,
petitioners threatened her and most of the times, they
used to reside in matrimonial home of respondent No. 2
and provoke her in-laws to quarrel with her, this Court is
of the view that these allegations do not fall within the
definition of ‘specific allegations’, as no date, time or year
has been mentioned and these allegations fall within the
definition of ‘general allegations’.
27. From these allegations, an inference can be drawn
that both the petitioners were not residing in the
matrimonial home of respondent No. 2. Without specifying
these allegations, the above deposition of respondent No.
2 falls within the definition of ‘general and vague
allegations’.
28 2025:HHC:2249
28. As state above, the petitioners have placed on
record the attested copy of statement of respondent No. 2,
made in the proceedings under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, titled
as, ‘Shalini Chauhan and others vs. Randeep Kumar &
others. In this case also, petitioners have been arrayed as
respondents No. 4 and 5.
29. In the said proceedings, respondent No. 2 on oath,
has not uttered a single sentence, against the petitioners.
Main thrust of the case was against her father-in-law,
mother-in-law and husband.
30. Interestingly, in the said proceedings, petitioners
have also been arrayed as respondents No. 4 and 5. So far
as the objections raised by learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid documents cannot be
taken into consideration, as defence is not to be
considered at this stage, is concerned, the said argument
is devoid of any merit, as the admitted documents can be
taken into consideration, while deciding petition, under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. The document, i.e. statement of
respondent No. 2, is not in dispute, nor any question can
be raised, against the said statement, as respondent No. 2
29 2025:HHC:2249
had made a statement on oath, before the competent
Court of law, before which, the proceedings under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, were pending.
31. Considering all these facts, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 298 of 2020, dated 8.8.2020,
registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 355, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC, alongwith proceedings
resultant thereto, in case No. 179 of 2020, titled as, ‘State
versus Labh Singh & others‘, pending before the learned
trial Court, qua petitioners Gaurav Chaudhary and
Deepali Chaudhary, is quashed.
32. The pending application(s), if any, are also
disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
8.1.2025
Kalpana
[ad_1]
Source link