Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.@mdashThe applicant, by means of present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated
1.9.2013 and the summoning order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 2775 of 2013 titled as State
v. Puneet Oberoi, under sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case
pending before the said Court. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 (Smt. Seema-victim) against the accused-applicant on 30.7.2013 at
Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC. After the investigation, a
charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offences. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned, vide
order dated 7.10.2013 and accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.
2. According to the informant-victim, she was married to the applicant 12 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. Articles were given in the
marriage to the best of her father''s capacity. Everything went off well in the initial months, but, after some time, the applicant started, assaulting and
abusing the informant/victim. The victim tolerated the same in the hope that everything will be set at right in future. The applicant started suspecting
her and also started imposing unnecessary restrictions on her. When the FIR was lodged, the applicant was at Singapore. The couple was
issueless. The victim thought to adopt a child but, the applicant did not agree to it. The applicant was medically diagnosed and it was revealed that
he was unable to make his wife pregnant. The applicant came to Delhi to attend a marriage. Thereafter the applicant did not talk to the victim.
Whenever the victim could try to talk to the applicant, he harassed her. The statement of the victim given to the Investigating Officer is also
enclosed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The Investigating Officer also took pains to enquire about the alleged crime from victim in question-answer
form. The other documents have also been brought on record in an effort to show that prima facie offences are made out against the applicant. As
said earlier, after the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, to which the applicant was aggrieved and therefore,
he filed the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Much emphasis is laid on section 188 Cr.P.C. by learned Counsel for the applicant that section 188 Cr.P.C. deals with the offence committed
outside India. It says that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere or by a person
not being such citizen on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any
place within India at which he may be found. The proviso to section 188 Cr.P.C. says that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
4. The applicant has lost sight of the fact that in the FIR, the victim showed the allegation of the offences against the applicant not only in India but
also in Singapore. The victim and the applicant was a married couple for 12 years. It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that everything went off
well in the initial days or months, but subsequently, the applicant started harassing her. So it cannot be said that the previous sanction of the Central
Government was required for enquiry or trial of present criminal case. The marriage of applicant with respondent No. 2 was solemnized at Delhi
and the couple went to Singapore only in June/July 2010. The FIR was lodged on 30.7.2013, which means that the couple lived together in India
for almost 9-10 years.
5. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of
jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd
and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not
satisfied then the Court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Courts should be reluctant and should
not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there
is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the
evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where
the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate Courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in
exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and
materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is
concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court
leading to injustice.
6. On a perusal of the FIR, as also charge-sheet, it is apparently clear that the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC are
prima facie made out against the applicant. It is made clear that there is no ingredient of harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.
7. Section 498-A IPC says that whoever being the husband of a lady subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. The word ''cruelty'' is
defined to mean that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.
8. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prima facie no offences under sections 498-A and 323 and section 504 IPC were made against the
applicant. It is well settled law that the factual aspects of the case need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant was at pains to argue that no offences were made against the applicant.
10. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, held as follows:
28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 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.
11. When factual foundation of any offence is laid against the accused-applicant, then this Court should not intervene in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. It is a well settled law that the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section. In the instant case, the accused-applicant is unable to pass
those tests and it is not a fit case where such jurisdiction should be exercised.
12. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, provided that if the
applicant surrenders before the Magistrate concerned and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided by the Magistrate concerned as
expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay. The applicant is granted liberty to raise factual pleas before the Trial Court at an
appropriate time for the purpose of seeking his discharge/acquittal.
