Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.K. Garg
  • M.A. Bhurat
  • Public Prosecutor
  • R2
  • H.S. Sandhu
  • Advocates.
Judges
  • Sandeep Mehta
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.K. Garg
  • M.A. Bhurat
  • Public Prosecutor
  • R2
  • H.S. Sandhu
  • Advocates.
Judges
  • Sandeep Mehta
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Miscellaneous Petition challenging charge-sheet (State v. Anoop Singh & Ors.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 750/2002 (State v. Anoop Singh & Ors.) arising from FIR No. 250/2002 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar. The complainant (respondent No.2), who married the petitioner on 10.03.1993, filed an FIR on 05.06.2002 alleging harassment and demands for dowry under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC. The complaint alleged various demands of money and dowry-related incidents spanning 1994, including transfers of sums (Rs. 1,00,000 on 12.02.1994; Rs. 1,50,000 at a later stage; Rs. 1,60,000 returned at a Panchayat after payment) and being turned out of the matrimonial home in December 1994, with retention of dowry articles and temporary detention of the child.

An investigation followed and a charge-sheet was filed: the opinion records that a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and against his parents for offences under Sections 420 and 498-A IPC. The trial court framed charges against co-accused Anoop Singh and Harinder Kaur for offences including Sections 420, 406 and 498-A IPC. Those two co-accused challenged framing of charges by way of Criminal Revision No. 47/2004; the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by order dated 01.06.2004, quashed the charges against those co-accused, holding that the essential ingredients of cheating and Section 498-A were not made out from the charge-sheet material and also noting the belated nature of the complaint.

The petitioner moved the present miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the proceedings against him as amounting to an abuse of process of court and as time-barred. The court heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and examined the record.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the proceedings (charge-sheet) against the petitioner amount to an abuse of the process of the court and therefore ought to be quashed under the inherent powers exercised in such petitions.
  2. Whether the admitted allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offences charged (specifically Section 420 IPC and Section 498-A IPC) as against the petitioner.
  3. Whether the prosecution is time-barred in view of the lengthy delay (approximately eight years) between the last alleged act of cruelty (December 1994) and the filing of the FIR (05.06.2002).
  4. What is the legal effect, if any, of the earlier order of the Sessions Judge quashing the prosecution of the co-accused on the present petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Sessions Judge's order in Criminal Revision No. 47/2004 (quashing charges against co-accused Anoop Singh and Harinder Kaur) has attained finality and concluded that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out.
  • The complainant waited around eight years after being allegedly turned out (December 1994) before filing the FIR (05.06.2002); this delay renders the proceedings an abuse of process and a tool of harassment.
  • The alleged monetary transfers were made voluntarily to send the petitioner abroad (to Hong Kong / U.S.A.) and not by inducement; therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not disclosed by the admitted allegations.
  • The prosecution is time-barred; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Sunder Babu & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 244 to support quashing of belated proceedings.

Complainant's (Respondent No.2) Arguments

  • The petitioner absconded and the charge-sheet was filed in his absence; therefore he should not be permitted to have the charge-sheet quashed without appearing before the trial court.
  • On the face of the material in the charge-sheet, the ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC are disclosed against the petitioner.
  • Reliance was placed on Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 146 to argue that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Sunder Babu & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 Quashing belated complaints under Section 498-A and related offences where delay renders the proceeding highly belated and an abuse of process. The court relied on this decision as a directly analogous authority quashing belatedly filed proceedings; it observed that the facts before it were even more glaring (a delay of over eight years) and applied the principle to support quashing the instant proceedings.
Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 146 Cited by the complainant's counsel to argue that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to quash criminal proceedings at an initial stage. The opinion records that counsel for the complainant relied on this decision; the Court noted the submission but the judgment's reasoning does not adopt this precedent as the basis for refusing relief, and the proceedings were ultimately quashed on other grounds set out in the judgment.
State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 Identifies categories where quashing may be appropriate, including category (vii): where proceedings are manifestly mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The court held that the petitioner's case falls within category (vii) of Bhajan Lal, quoted the relevant paragraph, and used that principle to conclude the proceedings were a gross abuse of process warranting quashing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, based exclusively on the material and arguments before it:

  1. Identification of the central factual chronology: the complainant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home in December 1994, and the petitioner had left for the United States with the consent of the complainant and her parents at that time.
  2. Assessment of delay: the court emphasized the eight-year gap between the last alleged act of cruelty (1994) and the FIR filed in June 2002, noting there was no satisfactory justification for this prolonged delay.
  3. Consideration of co-accused proceedings: the prosecution against the petitioner's parents (co-accused) had already been quashed by the Sessions Judge (Criminal Revision No. 47/2004) on the basis that the ingredients of cheating and Section 498-A were not made out and because the complaint was belated; the court took this into account in assessing the present petition.
  4. Examination of the material to determine whether the offence under Section 420 IPC was disclosed: the court concluded that the admitted allegations show the amounts were given voluntarily to enable the petitioner to go to the U.S.A., and therefore the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not disclosed.
  5. Consideration of Section 498-A IPC: the court stated that even if it were assumed the ingredients of Section 498-A were made out, the prosecution would be time-barred because of the eight-year delay in filing the complaint.
  6. Reliance on precedent: the court compared the facts to Sunder Babu (where the Apex Court quashed belated proceedings) and found the present delay to be even more significant, supporting quashing. The court also applied Bhajan Lal (category (vii)) and concluded the proceedings constituted a gross abuse of process, quoting the passage regarding mala fide or maliciously instituted proceedings.
  7. Conclusion from analysis: having considered the lack of disclosure for Section 420, the inordinate and unjustified delay for Section 498-A, the prior quashing of proceedings against co-accused, and the cited precedents, the court held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The miscellaneous petition succeeds and the impugned charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 750/2002 (State v. Anoop Singh & Ors.) pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar is QUASHED.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The immediate consequence is that the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner arising from FIR No. 250/2002 in Criminal Case No. 750/2002 are quashed and will not continue against him in that forum.
  • Basis: The quashing was founded on (a) the court's conclusion that the admitted facts do not disclose the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, (b) that any Section 498-A prosecution would be time-barred given the eight-year delay, (c) the prior quashing of proceedings against the co-accused by the Sessions Judge, and (d) established authority (Sunder Babu and the Bhajan Lal categories) showing belated or mala fide prosecutions can be quashed as an abuse of process.
  • Precedential effect: The judgment applies existing precedent to the facts of the case; the opinion does not purport to create a new legal principle beyond applying Sunder Babu and Bhajan Lal to the circumstances at hand. No broader change in law is announced in the text of the opinion.

This summary is limited to and strictly reflects information contained in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Vijay Pal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Another

    Sandeep Mehta, J.

    1. The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings going-on against him in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 750/2002 (State v. Anoop Singh & ors.) for the offences under Sections 420 and 498-A, IRC arising out of the FIR No. 250/2002 registered at the Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

    2. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of the miscellaneous petition are that the petitioner was married with respondent No. 2 Smt. Anoop Kaur on 10.3.1993. The complainant-respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against the petitioner and his parents for the offences under sections 498-a and 420 ipc with the allegations that she was harassed and humiliated by the accused for bringing dowry just after the marriage. It was further alleged that the petitioner was qualified only upto XII standard whereas it was depicted at the time of marriage that the petitioner was a Mobile Engineer. It was also alleged that her husband (the petitioner) and his parents harassed the complainant-respondent No.2 for the purpose of bringing money from her parents so that the petitioner could be sent to Hongkong and Thailand and resultantly the complainant-respondent No.2 gave a sum of Rs. one lac to the petitioner and his parents on 12.02.1994. The petitioner thereafter went to Hongkong and returned back after two months intimating that he could not get the job in Hongkong. The complainant also stated that the petitioner had gone abroad only on a Free-Port Tourist VISA and not on Working VISA, thus, it was alleged that the husband and his parents induced her and cheated her of the amount of Rs. One lac. A daughter was born to the complainant in the month of October 1994 and thereafter again the petitioner as well his parents started harassing and humiliating the complainant for demand of Rs. 3,50,000/- so that the petitioner could be sent to United States of America, whereupon the complainant brought a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her parents and gave the same to the petitioner, who thereafter left for U.S.A. on 26.11.1994. After that, the parents of the petitioner started to treat the complainant even more cruelty and started demanding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of a Godown. Ultimately, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant turned her out from her matrimonial home in the month of December, 1994 after retaining her dowry articles and also detaining her child. Thereafter the complainant went back to her matrimonial home and managed to bring back the child. She stated that she used to have talks with her husband over telephone. A year after this incident of turning the complainant out, a Panchayat was held, in which the dowry articles of the complainant were returned back to her after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-. She further alleged that the parents of the petitioner used to instigate him to hurl abuses to the complainant whereupon he used to abuse her over telephone. Ultimately, it is alleged that from the year previous to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner stopped conversing with the complainant. The complainant also stated that again a Panchayat was held 15 days prior to filing of the FIR where the parents of the petitioner disclosed that the petitioner had remarried and settled in the United States of America, it has also been stated that when the petitioner went to U.S.A., he had gone with the consent of the complainant and she and her parents had voluntarily given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner for going to U.S.A.

    3. The FIR to this effect was filed by the complainant on 05.6.2002, upon which the investigation was commenced and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 299 Cr.PC. and against his father Anoop Singh and mother Harinder Kaur for the offences under Sections 420 and 498-A, IPC.

    4. The learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against accused Anoop Singh and Harinder Kaur for the offences under sections 420, 406 and 498-a ipc and the aforesaid two accused challenged the order framing the charges by way of Criminal Revision No. 47/2004, which came to be decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by the order dated 01.6.2004. The learned Sessions Judge held that ex facie the allegations of the complainant regarding the offence of cheating are not made out from the allegations made in the complaint, it was also held that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 498-A IPC are also not disclosed from the material available on the charge-sheet. The learneo trial Court also found that after the marriage, the complainant lived with the accused at Muktsar (Punjab) and then in the year 1994, when the husband of the complainant, i.e. the petitioner, went to U.S.A., she started living with her parents at Sri Ganganagar and filed the complaint belatedly after eight years of voluntarily leaving the house of the petitioner. The learned trial Judge found that there was no justification for this belated complaint having been filed by the complainant and also came to the conclusion that the complaint has been filed in order to just harass and humiliate the accused persons. Resultantly, the charges framed against co-accused Anoop Singh and Harinder Kaur were quashed.

    5. The petitioner has, now, challenged the charge-sheet filed against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. by way of instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the proceedings as amounting to an abuse of process of the court.

    6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents made available on the record.

    7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 47/2004 has attained finality. The learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the revision petition filed by co-accused Anoop Singh and Harinder Kaur came to the positive conclusion that the ingredients of the offences, as alleged in the complaint, are not made out. He further submitted that concededly the complainant was turned out of her matrimonial home by the accused persons in the year 1994, therefore, there was no justification for her to have waited for a prolonged period of eight years before filing the FIR, thus, he submitted that the impugned First information Report and the charge-sheet are nothing but an abuse of process of court and are being used as tools of harassment and thus deserve to be quashed. He further submitted that the proposed prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet is also an abuse of process of the Court because the proceedings are time-barred. He submitted that as per the admitted allegations of the complainant, the alleged offences were committed upon her way back in the year 1994 and the FIR has been filed in the year 2002 and during this period, the complainant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been allowed on 15.3.2005. Thus, placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sunder Babu & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner, being an abuse or process of court, deserve to be quashed.

    8. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has absconded and the charge-sheet has been filed in his absentia, thus, he is not entitled to the luxury of having the charge-sheet quashed without appearing before the court even once. He further submits that ex facie the ingredients of the offences under sections 498-a and 420 ipc are disclosed against the petitioner from the material available on the charge-sheet and, thus, there is no reason for this Court to interfere for quashing the prosecution at the initial stage by way of the instant miscellaneous petition. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 146, he has submitted that the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. should not be exercised for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

    9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar and gone through the documents on record.

    10. The most important and material fact having a gearing in the instant matter is that the complainant was allegedly turned-out from her matrimonial home in the month of December 1994. At the time, admittedly the petitioner was not present in the country having left for United States of America with the consent of the complainant and her parents. Thus, if any cruelty had been committed with the complainant chose to keep silent for a period of eight years before filing the FIR.

    11. The allegation of commission of cruelty and cheating have been made against the petitioner as well as the co-accused persons in the same degree. The prosecution of the two co- accused has already been quashed by the learned Sessions Judge in the Revision Petition as mentioned above.

    12. During the pendency of the proceedings, the marriage between the parties has already been terminated on the basis of a divorce petition filed by the complainant.

    13. Ex facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not disclosed from the admitted allegations of the complainant. The amount which was allegedly given to the petitioner was admittedly given voluntarily to the accused-petitioner for going to United States of America and not on the basis of some inducement.

    14. In the opinion of this Court, even if it is assumed that the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC are made out against the accused then also the proceedings would be time-barred because the complaint in the instant case has been filed after eight years of the last act of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the accused.

    15. That apart, as has been observed above, there is no justification for the delay of eight years in filing of the FIR in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with almost an identical matter in the case of Sunder Babu & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), has quashed the proceedings which were filed belatedly by the wife against her husband. In that case, the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1998, the husband left for U.S.A. in the year 1999 and the complaint was filed in the year 2000. The Hon'ble Apex Court held the complaint in that case to be highly belated and quashed the proceedings under section 498-a and 406, ipc. The facts of the case in hand are even more glaring. The FIR has been field after more than eight years of the last acts of cruelty alleged by the complainant.

    16. Resultantly, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing proceedings to be continued against the present petitioner is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The case of the petitioner falls within the category (vii) of the case of State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under

    "(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"
    .

    17. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The impugned charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 750/2002 (State v. Anoop Singh & Ors.) pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vijay Pal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Another
    (Mar 21, 2012)