Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anuj Sharma And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another on 12 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 518 of 2023
.
Reserved on: 7.8.2024
Date of Decision: 12.9.2024.
Anuj Sharma and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another
Coram
r to ...Respondents
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate, for
respondent No.2
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition for
quashing of FIR No. 1 of 2023, dated 15.1.2023, registered at
Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406
and 506 of IPC and consequential proceedings pending before
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Una H.P.,
titled State of H.P. Vs. Anuj Sharma and another. It has been
.
asserted that the informant lodged a false FIR against the
petitioners. The contents of the FIR do not contain the details of
the incident of demand. Petitioner No.1 actively helped the
informant in getting her Ph.D. Degree and it was wrongly
mentioned in the FIR that she was not allowed to pursue her
higher education. The informant worked as an Assistant
Professor at RIMT University, Punjab and thereafter shifted to
Chandigarh University. It was wrongly mentioned that the
petitioners were unhappy with the birth of a baby girl. On the
other hand, the petitioners and their family members were
happy with the birth of the girl and also named her
Krishanpriya. The FIR is the result of misunderstanding. The
informant left her home with her daughter without any reason.
Petitioner No.1 used to reside in Panipat due to his job and the
informant was taking education at Patiala. They used to meet
during the weekend. The informant had initiated various
proceedings against the petitioners. The informant had taken all
the articles belonging to her with the help of the police. The
continuation of the proceedings would be highly unjust. Hence,
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR be
quashed.
.
2. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a
reply making preliminary submission regarding lack of
maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on
merits. It was asserted that the FIR was registered at the
instance of the informant. The police conducted the
investigation and found sufficient reasons to file a charge sheet
against the petitioners hence, the charge sheet was submitted in
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, who
assigned it to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Una.
Specific allegations were levelled by the informant against the
petitioners. She stated that three gold sets, two gold karas, one
gold nose ring (nath), two gold tops and a scooty are lying in the
house of the petitioners. The competent Court is seized of the
matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be
dismissed.
3. No reply was filed on behalf of the informant.
4. I have heard Mr Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Sunny Modgil, learned
counsel for respondent No.2/informant.
.
5. Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were
falsely implicated. The contents of the FIR are highly vague and
no specific allegations were made against the petitioners. There
is an unfortunate tendency of arraying all the family members in
case of matrimonial discord and Courts should look carefully
into the allegations made by the wife. Applying this yardstick to
the present case, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute the
commission of any cognizable offence. Hence, he prayed that
the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgments of Abhishek Vs.
Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 775, Mahalaxmi and others Vs. State
of Karnataka (2023) INSC 1050, Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana
(2024) SCC Online SC 751, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
others Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Geeta Mehrota Vs. State
of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. 1674 of 2012, decided on 17.10.2012, Gulam
Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka (2023) SCC Online, SC 603. Kapil
Aggarwal Vs. Sanjay Sharma, Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 2021, decided
1.3.2021, and Saleem Vs. State of H.P. (2023) INSC 687 in support of
his submission.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.1/State submitted that the allegations against
.
the petitioners are quite specific. The police conducted the
investigation and found sufficient grounds to file the charge
sheet. Learned Trial Court is seized of the matter and this Court
should not exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. Mr. Sunny Modgil, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/informant adopted the submissions of Mr. Ajit Sharma
learned Deputy Advocate General and further submitted that
this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while deciding a petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court is seized of
the matter and the petitioners should be directed to approach
the learned Trial Court for the redressal of their grievances. He
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal Vs. State of
H.P., Cr. MMO No. 1041 of 2023, decided on 11.1.2024 in support of
his submission.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
9. The parameters for exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
.
Court in A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, wherein it
was observed: –
9. The law with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized bythis Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 452 after
considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to
refer to the following observations of this Court in thesaid case, which read thus:
“12. The principles relating to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash complaints and criminal
proceedings have been stated and reiterated by thisCourt in several decisions. To mention a few–
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 SCC (Cri)234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar PalSingh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans AgroIndustries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri)
1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164: 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259: 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)
3 SCC 269: 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168: 2000 SCC
(Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC
645: 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our
purpose are:
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the
merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material
nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the court, as when
the criminal proceeding is found to have been
initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be
used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.
The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid
in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of
the complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts
which are necessary for making out the offence.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a
civil wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a
civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
commercial transaction or a contractual dispute,
apart from furnishing a cause of action for
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a
criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil
proceeding are different from a criminal
proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
.
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or
has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash
the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal
offence or not.
10. Similar is the judgment in Maneesha Yadav v. State of
U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: –
12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 INSC 363:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under ChapterXIV 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 theinherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give thefollowing categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwiseto 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.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
(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 investigation
.
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
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
.
that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to
act according to its whim or caprice.”
11. The FIR mentions that a complaint was made by the
informant stating that she was married on 25.6.2019 to
petitioner Anuj Sharma. The informant’s parents provided
dowry at the time of her marriage as per their capacity. Her
mother-in-law started harassing her for bringing insufficient
dowry soon after the marriage. She started saying that no
vehicle was provided by the informant’s father and this had
defamed the petitioners in the community. The informant told
her that her parents had provided the ornaments as per their
capacity to the petitioners’ relatives but her pleas fell on deaf
ears. The informant also stated that her father remained ill and
he had spent a good amount on the education of his children.
The informant could not pressurize him for providing the
vehicle. She shared the demand for a vehicle with her husband in
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
July 2019. Her husband also stated that only a vehicle was
demanded and started harassing the informant on petty
.
matters. The informant was late in August 2019 and when she
reached home, her husband abused her and told her that he
would not allow her to complete her Ph.D. The informant was
pregnant. She was not helped by any person and was forced to
work. Whenever any gifts were provided by the informant’s
parents, the petitioners used to taunt her by saying that the gifts
were not provided as per their status. The informant told these
facts to her father-in-law but he expressed his inability to do
anything. The informant went to get herself checked up in the
sixth month of the pregnancy. She met some person known to
her. Her husband started abusing her in the presence of that
person and told her that in case she came out of the house, it
would not be good for her. He used to say that the informant had
not done anything in life, she was not worth anything and she
was getting the fellowship for nothing. One daughter was born
to the informant on 18.5.2020. The petitioners were not happy
with her birth as they wanted a son. The informant explained
that she had no control over the child’s sex but the petitioners
did not accept her plea. The gifts of ornaments and clothes were
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
provided during the function to celebrate the birth of the
daughter. The petitioners taunted the informant by saying that
.
their reputation was lowered. The vehicle could have been
provided. The petitioners harassed the informant for bringing
gold ornaments. The informant was threatened not to reveal the
incident to any person. The informant’s husband used to abuse
her. He also snatched her mobile phone and did not allow her to
talk to her parents. One day an attempt was made to throw her
out of the home and when she resisted, she was slapped. The
informant left the home and went to her paternal home. Her
husband threatened to kill her. Three gold sets, two gold karas,
one gold nath, two sets of tops, one scooty and certificates are
lying in her matrimonial home.
12. It is apparent from the perusal of the FIR that the
allegations are quite specific. The months when the incident
occurred have been given. The role of the petitioners has been
outlined in detail. Hence, the submissions that the allegations in
the FIR are vague cannot be accepted and the judgments of the
Hon’ble Court in Abhishek (supra), Mahalaxmi (supra),
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam (supra), Achin Gupta (supra) and
Geeta Mehrotra (supra) holding that when the allegations are
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
general and vague, the continuation of the proceedings amounts
to abuse of the process of the Court do not apply to the present
.
case.
13. It was submitted that the Courts should read
between the lines to determine whether any case was made out
or not. Even if the allegations are read carefully and between the
lines, it cannot be deciphered that they have been made with
ulterior purposes. The reading of the FIR prima facie shows that
the informant had filed the FIR before the police when she was
fed up with the harassment in her matrimonial home at the
hands of the petitioners. Significantly, the informant mentioned
that she made a complaint to her father-in-law but he did not
take any action. She had not made any complaint of the
harassment against her father-in-law. She could have made a
general allegation implicating all the relatives of the petitioners
but she chose not to do so. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners
that the FIR was lodged to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners
and his family members’ prima face does not appear to be
correct. Therefore, no assistance can be derived from the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gulam Mustafa
(supra) and Salim (supra).
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
14. The informant has given the details of the events
which happened after the marriage. The details are graphic and
.
cannot be concocted. The police conducted the investigation and
found that to be correct. Hence, prima facie a case of the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406
and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against the
petitioners.
15. It was rightly submitted that the Court exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini-
trial. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 that the
Court exercises extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. and cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an
appreciation of an evidence of a particular case. It was
observed:-
“13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in
catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time
of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal
proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary
jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini-trial
nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular
case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of
the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave
off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be
set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 820 held to the following effect:
.
“28. Having gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court by
which the High Court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in the exercise of powers underSection 482 Cr. P.C., it appears that the High
Court has virtually conducted a mini-trial, which
as such is not permissible at this stage and while
deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a
catena of decisions no mini-trial can be
conducted by the High Court in the exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction
and at the stage of deciding the application under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot get
into appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considered.”
16. A similar view was taken in Maneesha Yadav v. State of
U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 wherein it was held that: –
“13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stageof quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint,
if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of
an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the
cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value,
do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out
a case against the accused. We are of the considered view
that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the
categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (supra).
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this
Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), Department of Home(2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC.
1060:
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that
once the charge sheet is filed, the petition forquashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any
merit in this submission, keeping in mind the
position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj
A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC
59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding
the question of whether the High Court couldentertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of
FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police
during the pendency of the Section 482 petition,
observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)“16. Thus, the general conspectus of the
various sections under which the appellant
is being charged and is to be prosecutedwould show that the same are not made out
even prima facie from the complainant’sFIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed,
the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj365] could have still examined whether the
offences alleged to have been committed by
the appellant were prima facie made out
from the complainant’s FIR, charge-sheet,
documents, etc. or not.”
17. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to go into
the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
18. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The
.
learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC
734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been
filed, learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It
was observed:
“At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet isready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the
FIR do not inspire any confidence particularly in the
absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences, we are of the view that the appellants shouldprefer a discharge application before the trial court
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC). We say so because even according to the State,
the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready tobe filed before the competent court. In such
circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look
into the materials which the investigating officer might
have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If anysuch discharge application is filed, the trial court shall
look into the materials and take a call whether any
discharge case is made out or not.”
19. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the FIR.
Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS
18
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8418 )
20. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no
.
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
12th September 2024
(Chander)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:32:06 :::CIS