The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the application observed that as the cognizance order was passed on the chargesheet and later on carried out on the order sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance order was carried out on the printed proforma, therefore, it cannot be said that the order for taking cognizance was passed on printed proforma.
A single-judge bench of Justice Mohd Aslam heard the application filed by Smt Kiran Kunwar and 2 others.
The application under Section 482 CrPC has been moved on behalf of applicants Smt Kiran Kunwar and Ram Kunwar with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.4.2018, arising out of Case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District J.P Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P Nagar, by which the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by police.
The facts necessary for disposal of the application is that the opposite party no 2 Anushka alias Bharti Singh wife of Amitesh Singh lodged a first information report on 2.11.2017 at 11:05 a.m in Case under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 511, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District J.P Nagar by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC, wherein it was alleged that the marriage of opposite party no 2 was taken place with Amitesh Singh on 6.2.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Bareilly and she went to her matrimonial home situated in Village and Post Gajsthal, Police Station Naugawan Sadaat, District Amroha.
In this marriage, her parents incurred an amount of Rs 20 lakh including household articles and a cheque of Rs 1,51,000, but even after this, her husband Amitesh, Ram Kunwar (father-in-law), Kiran Kunwar (mother in-law), Deepak Kumar (Jeth), Anamika Yadav (Jethani) were not pleased with the dowry given in her marriage.
Immediately after the marriage, they started demanding Rs 10 lakh cash in dowry and her husband also demanded that a car (Hyundai Xcent) which was given in her marriage and registered in the name of opposite party no 2 be transferred in the name of her husband. The opposite party no 2 tried to convince them, but they didn’t agree and started harassing the opposite party no 2 financially, mentally and physically and assaulting her due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
The opposite party no 2 also sustained injuries on account of assault. After that on conspiracy of her in-laws, her husband started living with her in a rented house in Noida from April 2017 to 17th September 2017, where her husband continuously demanded the dowry and kept it on and on refusal by her, she was badly beaten and on 17th September, 2017, her husband leaving her alone in Noida, came to his house at Bareilly.
Thereafter, her jeth Deepak came to her at Noida and tried to make her drink alcohol and on protest he started doing obscene acts with the opposite party no.2 and assaulted her and forcibly tried to have physical relationship saying that everything goes on in his house and her husband also enjoys with his wife. On alarm raised by opposite party no 2, he fled away. Thereafter, the opposite party no 2 called her father and came with him to her parental village situated in Rajasthan.
The anger of her in-laws did not subside and on 24.9.2017, her husband Amitesh, father-inlaw Ram Kunwar, mother-in-law Kiran Kunwar, Jeth Deepak Kumar and Jethani Anamika Yadav to came to her parental home in Rajasthan, she treated them well and asked them to sit down, thereafter, they started saying that they did not come here to sit, but to finalise the matter and started repeating their demands for additional dowry. Thereupon, the opposite party no 2 refused to fulfil their demand. Upon which, they became aggressive and her husband and Jeth started abusing her in filthy language and beat her and Jeth also did obscene acts with her.
On seeing it, her mother forbade them and tried to save her, thereupon, her husband and in-laws started assaulting her mother and stated that they would kill her. She raised alarm, thereupon, Amarnath Sharma, Ramnath Singh and others gathered there and on it, her in-laws fled away from there. In this assault, the opposite party no 2 sustained several injuries. She complained the matter to police at Police Station Mahila Thana, Amroha, but no action was taken by the police. She also sent the complaint by registered post to Mahila Thana, but also no action was taken.
Thereafter, she moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha and on the order of the court, the first information report was lodged. After lodging the first information report, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses.
After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against accused Amitesh Singh, Ram Kunwar, Kiran Kunwar in Case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District J.P Nagar.
The cognizance on the charge-sheet was taken by the Civil Judge (SD)/FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of charge-sheet vide order dated 20.4.2018 and summoned the accused for facing trial. Feeling aggrieved by it, the application under Section 482 CrPC has been moved.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the order dated 20.4.2018 for taking cognizance of the offence has been passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filling in the blanks on the computer typed proforma.
It is further submitted that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge-sheet and on this count the order of taking cognizance of the offence dated 20.4.2018 is liable to be set aside.
It is also submitted that the first information report has been lodged by opposite party no 2 on the basis of a concocted story just to drag the applicants in the litigation to harass them.
The counsel for the applicants said that the first information report is anti-time and is based on false and concocted stories and all allegations are baseless and are levelled against the applicants just harass them.
The counsel for the applicants further said that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no 2 and they are living separately at Bareilly while the opposite party no2 was living with her husband at Noida and they had no concern with the matrimonial dispute in between opposite party no 2 and her husband.
It is further submitted that applicant no 1 is a very old lady aged about 65 years and is suffering from terminal diseases and applicant no 2 is also old aged person and both of them were living separately along with their another son. It is further submitted that the applicants never demanded additional dowry of Rs 10 lakh from the opposite party no 2 or her parents.
AGA and counsel for informant have opposed the prayer of application and have submitted that from perusal of the first page of the charge-sheet, it is abundantly clear that cognizance was taken on the order sheet on 20.4.2018 and the cognizance order was carried out on the printed proforma of the order sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of cognizance was passed on the printed proforma.
The Court observed,
From perusal of the first information report, injury report and the statement of the informant and witnesses, prima-facie case punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the applicants. The genuineness of the prosecution case cannot be determined in the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and to determine the genuineness of the prosecution case can be only seen by the trial court after recording the evidence.
From perusal of the first information report and the material available on record and the chargesheet, prima-facie case punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the applicants and it requires no interference in the impugned order of the court below.
So far as the argument of the counsel for applicant regarding order on printed proforma is concerned, from perusal of order-sheet, it is abundantly clear that the order of taking cognizance was passed on the first page of the charge-sheet in the hand writing not by filling up the proforma and the summoning order carried on the order-sheet on printed proforma by itself cannot be said that the cognizance order was passed on printed proforma, therefore, in above circumstances, the law laid down by the High Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Jaiswal Vs State of U.P and another 2021 0 Supreme (All) 491 (supra) is not applicable in the case.
“In this case, the first information report and the evidence collected during the investigation disclosed active involvement of the applicant no 1 mother-in-law and applicant no 2 father-in-law. It is necessary to mention the fact that originally Amitesh Singh, the husband of the victim was made party and later on his name was deleted. This conduct also shows that the applicants have not come with clean hands before the Court. There are specific and general allegations against the applicant nos 1 & 2 and her husband, whose name was later on deleted from the array of applicants, therefore, in above circumstances, it cannot be said that no specific and distinct allegations were levelled against the applicants.
In this case as the cognizance order was passed on the chargesheet and later on carried out on the order sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance order was carried out on the printed proforma, therefore, it cannot be said that the order for taking cognizance was passed on printed proforma. Specific allegations were levelled against the applicants and her husband. The genuineness of the prosecution case cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.
From perusal of the first information report and statement under Section 161 CrPC, prima-facie offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the applicants, therefore, in above circumstances, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case based on charge-sheet and its cognizance order is hereby refused,” the Court further observed while dismissing the application.