Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.@mdashThis application has been moved seeking the quashing of Complaint Case No. 129 of 2008 (Kali Charan v. Ramesh and others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Shri Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is present along with learned AGA. This application is of year 2008. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.
2. It seems that in the light of the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre by order dated 3.11.2008. The report of Mediation Centre reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not fructify and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.
3. It appears that a complaint by one Kalicharaji, opposite party No. 2 was brought before the Court with the allegation that on 19.7.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. when the complainant was in the house alongwith his family, the accused-applicants barged into his house and expressed their anger as to how has they been released on bail so soon. It was also alleged that a demand of divorce was made and pressed on behalf of the accused side and the complainant was also beaten and insulted. The incident is said to have been witnessed by certain persons. As the attempt to lodge the F.I.R. is said to have failed, the claim to have got himself medically examined on his own has been made and thereafter the complaint was preferred. The statement of complainant was recorded. Apart from him, one Vijendra Singh and Sultan Singh were also examined by the Court who completely corroborated the allegations made in the complaint and also to the statement of complainant. The Court on the aforesaid material produced by the complainant proceeded to summon the applicants to face trial under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
4. The perusal of the grounds shown in the application and also the entire record available before the Court reveals some very catching features and the circumstances which surface up from the perusal of the record are a very strong pointer to conclude that the whole prosecution seems to be frivolous and false without doubt and has been brought forth as an arm twisting device and also to wreak vengeance.
5. Significant facts which would be germane to decide this application are like this. The accused-applicant No. 3, Ramesh is the brother of one Usha who is married to Anil who is son of Kalicharan, opposite party No. 2. As the aforesaid Anil and his brother Naresh and another brother Rameshwar and his mother Javitri Devi etc. were pressing forth further demands of dowry, the same resulted in extreme cruelty which was committed from time to time on Usha. At some stage accused Ramesh came to know that his sister was mercilessly beaten by her in-laws and they have also attempted to set her ablaze as a result of which her condition had deteriorated and she had received injuries also. A demand of Rs. 50,000/- was being pursued from the side of Usha''s in laws. An F.I.R. enumerating from the aforesaid facts and allegations was lodged by accused-applicant Ramesh against the offenders that is to say against Usha''s husband Anil, brother-in-law (Jeth) Rameshwar and mother-in-law (sic) Devi in the Police Station Sad(sic) District-Agra as Case Crime No. 2/37 of 2005 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act. Aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged on 1.7.2005 by accused-applicant Ramesh. It was this F.I.R. which resulted in the arrest of certain accused of that case who were sent to jail and are said to have come out before the incident in question which is under challenge by way of this application.
6. The plea suggested in the grounds of the application indicate that as the husband and other in-laws of aforesaid Usha were reeling with vengeance they in order to exert pressure upon the wife and her parental side have brought this entirely frivolous complaint which has been engineered by them.
7. When this Court has perused the contents of the complaint and other material produced by the complainant, it finds that there are some glaring features which explode the truthfulness of the complaint completely and manifestly demonstrate the mala fides behind them. Even the allegations are so patently absurd that no prudent man can ever believe in their existence or truthfulness.
8. At the very outset it may be stated that the complaint lodged against the applicants refers to the incident which is said to have taken place on 19.7.2006 at 2.00 p.m. while the complaint has been lodged on 17.1.2008 that is to say about one and half year thereafter. This yawning gap between the date of occurrence and filing of the complaint is so inordinate that it calls for a very serious explanation. The whole record does not furnish any such justifiable cause which may explain away the aforesaid belated filing of the complaint. A lame pretense that complainant waited for some action on the application which he alleged to have moved before police does not sound acceptable and falls too short of explaining the preposterous delay. The principle of law in this regard is trite and pristine both. If the promptness in reporting an occurrence gave assurance to the credibility of (sic) version the unexplained delay and that too of such a nature as is involved in the matter shall very adversely cut at the very root of its credibility. The confabulations, concerts and even legal advices all must have intercepted in this long gap and the version of the complainant side suffers from this obvious infirmity. Again when this Court looks into the alleged medical examination of the complainant which reports three simple injuries has also been done belatedly. Opposite party No. 2 who is complainant in the present case is said to have been examined on 22.7.2006 while the incident is said to have taken place on 19.7.2006. The nature of medical examination and the injury found, in the wake of unexplained delay also drifts and shakes under a deep shade of doubt on its genuineness. Apart from this the very manner of occurrence smacks of high degree of improbability and it is too much to believe that the family members of the wife would be so fool hardy that they will go all the way to the house of the complainant which was the house of in-laws of their daughter in the peek of the day and shall successfully beat them inside their house and will walk away safely unhurt without any resistance by anyone. The whole story bristles with unpalatable improbabilities. It looks to be a typical case where the in-laws of the lady who themselves are guilty of inflicting cruelty on her, in order to wriggle out of the prosecution which they themselves are facing for having committed several offences against the helpless lady, resorted to bringing forth a frivolous case as a counter-blast just to exert coercive pressure not to prosecute them and force a compromise on parental side of the lady as an arm twisting device.
9. It may be apt to recall the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court given in the case of
"The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations, in our opinion, are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminates into an order u/s 204 of the Code. Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.
The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."
The Apex Court''s decisions given in the case of
"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 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 u/s 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."
10. Illumined by the aforesaid views expressed by the Hon''ble Apex Court when the record and the facts of the case have been delved into, this Court has no doubt in its mind to hold that the present prosecution is patently frivolous and false and has been brought with proven mala fides. The allegations and facts are also so highly improbable that no man of ordinary prudence would ever justly arrive at the conclusion that they may be true or that the said accused might have been guilty for committing the alleged offences.
11. It is true that ordinarily this Court is loath to substitute the judicial discretion of the lower Court which it exercises in order to see the sufficiency of material justifying the summoning of the accused and this Court also does not enter into the last details or into a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact as the same exercise is left to be done only by the Trial Court at the stage of final adjudication of the case. But each case depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to it and has to be decided on the individual merits of its own. So far as the present case is concerned, the circumstances which emerge out from the record are so clear that no other view can possibly be taken by the Court than the one which it has arrived at. This Court has no doubt in its mind that allowing this frivolous prosecution to go on against the family members of the parental side of the lady will result in the gross miscarriage of justice.
12. In the facts and circumstances discussed above and also in view of the relevant law referred to above, this Court deems it fit to quash the impugned complaint and the entire proceedings consequent thereupon in order to avert the abuse of the Court''s process and also in order to answer the higher calls of justice. This application is allowed and the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed.
