Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 6.12.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 6 January, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
12025:HHC:1035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 1067 of 2022
Reserved on : 6.12.2024
Decided on : 6.1.2025
Shubham Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Atharv
Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr.
H.S. Rawat and Mr.
Mohinder Zharaick,
Additional Advocates
General and Mr. Rohit
Sharma and Ms. Ranjana
Patial Dy. A.Gs, for
respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. Divya Raj Singh,
Advocate, for respondent No.
2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Petitioner Shubham Sharma has filed the
present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
22025:HHC:1035
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.
P.C..) for quashing of FIR No. 74 of 2022, dated
4.5.2022, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in
question’), registered under Sections 498A, 323, 406,
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC‘), with Police
Station, Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., as well
as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be
pending before the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una,
H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).
2. The petitioner has filed the petition on the
ground that his elder brother, namely, Ankush
Sharma was married to respondent No. 2, in the year
2018. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2, for the
reasons best known to her, lodged FIR in question, in
which, Police has conducted the investigation and
submitted chargesheet, against the petitioner, as well
as, his brother and parents. There are total four
32025:HHC:1035
accused in the case, pending adjudication, before the
learned trial Court.
3. According to the petitioner, he has completed
his Internship, after passing MBBS in March, 2019 at
MGM College, Aurangabad (Maharashtra). Thereafter,
he had joined Bhatia Coaching Academy at New Delhi,
for the purpose of preparation, for appearing in the
NEET-PG examination.
4. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has
nothing to do with the offence, for which, he has been
named as accused, in this case. It is the further case
of the petitioner that even if the entire allegations,
levelled in the FIR, are taken as it is, then, no case is
made out against the petitioner.
5. According to the petitioner, he is innocent
person and is not even remotely connected with the
alleged crime.
5. Heavily relying upon the statements of
witnesses, recorded during the investigation, the
42025:HHC:1035
petitioner has prayed that nothing has come out
against him, during the investigation.
6. On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that
the present petition may kindly be allowed by
quashing the FIR in question, registered against him.
7. Alongwith the petition, he has annexed the
copy of report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., the
complaint made by respondent No.2, copy of the FIR,
as well as, statements of the witnesses, recorded
during the investigation. All these documents have
been annexed to show that no case is made out
against him and proceedings initiated against him are
nothing, but abuse of process of law.
8. When, put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed
reply, by taking preliminary objections, that the
petition is not maintainable, as charges have not been
framed by the learned trial Court; the petitioner has
no locus standi to file the present petition; the petition
is not sustainable in the eyes of law; and that the
52025:HHC:1035
petitioner has concealed the material facts, from the
scrutiny of the Court.
9. On merits, the petition has been contested on
the ground that at the instance of respondent No. 2,
the FIR in question has been registered, against the
petitioner and others, in which, investigation has been
conducted and Police has submitted the charge-sheet,
before the learned trial Court. It is the specific case of
the respondent-State that there are sufficient grounds
to proceed against the accused persons, including the
petitioner herein.
10. The prayer, so made in the petition, has
further been contested on the ground that there are
specific allegations, against the petitioner, in the
complaint, moved by respondent No. 2. Reproducing
the relevant portion of the complaint, in the reply, a
prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
11. On 23.8.2023, the Police has filed the
supplementary status report by reproducing the
contents of the FIR and the fact that after
62025:HHC:1035
investigation, the Police has filed the charge-sheet,
against the petitioner and three others, for the
commission of offence, under Section 498-A, 323, 406,
504, 506 and 34 IPC, before the learned trial Court.
12. Petitioner is before this Court, under Section
482 Cr. P.C. This Court has to see only the prima-facie
case and not to act as trial Court or the appellate
Court. If the bare reading of the complaint makes out
a prima-facie case against the petitioner, then, powers
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should not be exercised.
13. In this case, criminal machinery was put into
motion by respondent No. 2, by filing the complaint,
before the Police. The said complaint is consisting of
six pages. In the opening lines of the complaint, she
has alleged that she was married to Ankush Sharma,
on 12.10.2018. After three months of marriage, her
husband Ankush Sharma, mother-in-law Shashi Bala
and father in law Yashpal Sharma has started
harassing her physically and mentally and these
persons used to demand money from her and harass
72025:HHC:1035
her for dowry. She has alleged that her husband
Ankush Sharma, father in law Yashpal Sharma and
mother in law Shashi Bala also used to beat her. She
has further alleged in the complaint that on
14.1.2022, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-
law had thrown out her from the matrimonial home,
as well as, her articles. On that day, according to her,
after making request to them, they kept her articles
inside their house.
13. According to the complainant, on 1.4.2022,
when she came back after attending her duties from
the school, then she found that all the aforesaid
persons, i.e. her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-
law and brother-in-law had broken open the lock of
her room and put new lock there. Her belongings were
also found scattered, but, she did not say anything to
them.
14. After sometime, her mother-in-law and
petitioner came to her room and started abusing her.
Thereafter, she has levelled the general allegations
82025:HHC:1035
against the four persons by alleging that they used to
harass her physically and mentally.
15. The complainant has further alleged that on
3.5.2022, her husband had thrown her out of the
room and started searching her Almirah. When, the
complainant had requested him to open the room,
then, he had started abusing her. She has alleged
against her father-in-law and mother-in-law that they
used to instigate her husband, against her. According
to her, in case, some untoward incident happens with
her, then, responsibility of the same will be of her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-
law (petitioner). She has alleged that on 4.5.2022,
when, she was working at about 8:30 p.m., in the
kitchem, then, her father-in-law and mother-in-law
had started abusing her and beaten her. Her husband
also misbehaved with her and torn her clothes.
16. During investigation, the Police has recorded
the statements of the witnesses. Father of respondent
No. 2, in his statement, under Section 161 Cr. P.C.,
92025:HHC:1035
has deposed that whenever husband of the
complainant used to come to his house, he alongwith
his parents used to harass the complainant, for
bringing less dowry. He has further deposed that on
3.5.2022, at about 11:20 p.m., he received a
telephonic call from his daughter, who has disclosed
that Ankush Sharma, Yashpal Sharma and Shashi
Bala had beaten her and misbehaved with her. He has
not disclosed that respondent No. 2 had alleged
anything against the petitioner. The main thrust of his
allegations, in the statement recorded under Section
161 Cr. P.C., is against three persons, i.e. Ankush
Sharma (husband), Yashpal Sharma (father-in-law)
and Shashi Bala (mother-in-law).
17. Similar type of statement has also been made
by Savita Devi, who is mother of respondent No. 2.
18. During investigation, police has also recorded
the statement of Ganesh Dutt, maternal uncle of
respondent No. 2. He has also levelled general
allegations against all the four persons, by deposing
102025:HHC:1035
that they had started harassing respondent No. 2, for
bringing less dowry.
19. Similar type of statement has also been made
by Meena Devi, under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
20. In the complaint made by respondent No. 2,
she has named all the members of the family, as
accused. The allegations are against her husband, her
mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law
(petitioner).
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar
and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in
2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain
directions for exercising the jurisdiction 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
112025:HHC:1035impermissible 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
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
122025:HHC:1035defence 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.
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
132025:HHC:1035would 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
when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused.”
22. 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:
142025:HHC:1035
“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
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
152025:HHC:1035investigation 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.
(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.”
162025:HHC:1035
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.”
23. 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:
“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
172025:HHC:1035any 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
complainant 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.2 , this Court held that mere casual reference
182025:HHC:1035
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.3, 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 Lal4, wherein after
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
192025:HHC:1035
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.”
23. In this case, learned counsel for respondent No. 2
has raised objections that arguments of learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioner, 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
petitioner or not.
24. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied
upon a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mahmood Ali & others versus State of H.P. & others,
202025:HHC:1035
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.
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.
212025:HHC:1035
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
material 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
222025:HHC:1035alleged 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
adduced 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
232025:HHC:1035
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…..”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Consequently, this Court has to see whether there
are ‘specific allegations’, against the petitioner, in this
case.
26. As stated above, criminal machinery was swung
into motion by an educated lady, by moving a complaint,
consisting of six pages, and in the initial paragraphs of
this complaint, there were no allegations, against the
petitioner, but later on, general allegations have been
levelled against him.
26. Merely, for the reason that in the incident,
allegedly taken place on 1.4.2022, as per the complaint,
names of four persons have been mentioned, does not
mean that said allegations falls within the definition of
‘specific allegations’. It is highly improbable that said
material fact, regarding the incident, which had taken
242025:HHC:1035
place, on 1.4.2022, had not been disclosed by respondent
No. 2 to her parents, as both of them, in their statements,
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., have not uttered
even a stray sentence, which would constitute the ‘specific
allegations’.
27. Considering all these facts, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 74/2022, dated 4.5.2022, registered
under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC, alongwith proceedings resultant
thereto, in case No. 16-1 of 2022, pending before the
learned trial Court, qua petitioner Shubham Sharma, are
quashed.
28. The pending application(s), if any, are also
disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
6.1.2025
Kalpana