Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Amrita Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, 09-01-2017]

Contents

The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.

# HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Hon’ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 4075 of 2011

Applicant :- Amrita Chaturvedi And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisar Ahmad,K.K Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amrendra Nath Tripathi AND Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 4077 of 2011 Applicant :- Amrita Chaturvedi And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisar Ahmad,K.K Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amrendra Nath Tripathi

1. Heard Sri I.B.Singh learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. In Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.4075 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) of 2011 following relief has been sought by the petitioners:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the Complaint Case No.2089 of 2010 (Ramakant Pathak vs. Smt. Amita Shukla and others) and summoning orders dated 25.5.2011, 7.7.11 and Bailable Warrant order dated, 5.8.2011 and 27.8.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow, Court No.29 and all proceedings emanating therefrom; In the alternative, it is further prayed that this Hon’bleCourt may kindly be pleased to stay the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.2089 of 2010 (Ramakant Pathak Vs. Smt. Amita Shukla and others) pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow, Court No.29, during pendency of this petition before this Hon’ble Court. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass further order which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. ”

3. In Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.4077 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) of 2011 following relief has been claimed by the petitioners:

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash all proceeding of the Case No.8160/2009, arising out of Case Crime No.366/2009 under Section 506 IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, Pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, contained in Annexure No.1 to the question. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash charge-sheet bearing No.370/2009 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass further order which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. A gift deed was executed by the opposite party no.2 in favour of petitioner no.1 on 9.6.2014. Petitioner no.1 married to petitioner no.2 on 15.4.2008, thereafter, a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 alleging that the opposite party no.2 has constructed a house at Aliganj, Lucknow. Petitioner no. 2 is a Tantrik, petitioner no.1 Amrita is daughter of opposite party no.2, Ramakant Pathak. She came in contact with petitioner no.2 Bhartendu Chaturvedi. Fraudulently a gift deed was got executed in favour of petitioner no.1. Opposite party no.2 got itsknowledge on 26.2.2009 when a notice was sent by petitioner no.1. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR under Section 420, 506 IPC at case crime no.366/09 P.S. Madiyaon, District-Lucknow. Petitioner no.2 also got married with petitioner no.1 concealing the fact that his first wife is still alive. Amita Shukla, another daughter of opposite party no.2 was suffering from cancer. Accused started torturing the opposite party no.2 as well as his wife. On 14.6.2006 at about 7.00pm, accused came in the house and started abusing the opposite party no.2 and his wife. Arvind Prakash Pachauri was present at that time. On 15.6.2010 again at about 9.30 pm accused came in the house of opposite party no.2 and threatened him. At that time, Shalni Pandey was also with them. They also threatened to kill them.

5. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant Ramakant Pathak under section 202 Cr.P.C. Smt.Girja Pathak and Arvind Prakash Pachauri under section 202 IPC, thereafter, after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, learned Magistrate summoned Amrita Shukla, Bhartendu Chaturvedi, Amrita Pathak and Salani Pandey under sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC and also Bharttendu Chaturvedi under Section 494 IPC.

6. In the FIR at case crime no.366/2009, charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.V which was registered at case no.8160/2009 under section 506 IPC, P.S. Madiyaon, District-Lucknow.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 is the father of Amrita Chaturvedi. Civil litigation is also pending between the parties. Civil suits are pending in the civil court. It is further submitted that section 494 IPC is not made out against Bhartendu Chaudhari as there is a legal bar under section 198 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that complaint is filed by Ramakant Pathak, who is father of Amrita Chaturedi, who is not covered under the heading ‘person aggrieved’. It has further been argued by the learned Senior Counsel that case under section 452 IPC is also not made out as petitioner no.1 Amita Shukla is the rightful owner of the property. Gift deed was executed by opposite party no.2 in her favour. Hence she is in possession over the property. In such a case she cannot be said to be a trespasser in her own house. It is further submitted that no offence of criminal intimidation has been committed by the accused. No evidence could be collected by the police druring investigation. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under section 506 IPC is also bad in law.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the police have dropped the charge under section 498 IPC which was allegedly the main offence. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 with oblique and ulterior motive against the accusedpetitioners have lodged forged and frivolous complaints.

9. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case law of Hon’ble Apex Court:-

# 1. State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

# 2. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust and Others v. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505.

# 3. Lata Singh v. State of U.P.& Anr., 2006 (5) SCC 4475

# 4. Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy & others (2013) 6 SCC 740

# 5. Smt. Prem Lata Sawhney v. The State of U.P. & Anr. (1993) 22 ALR 173

# 6. Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharati (2009) 10 SCC 184

# 7. Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287

# 8. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749

10. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the alleged gift deed in favour of petitioner no.1 is a result of fraudulent action of the accused. It is further submitted that petitioner nos.1 and 2 came at the house of opposite party no.2. They came alongwith petitioner no.3 who is reportedly a journalist. They came with an intention to frame opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is residing in his house alongwith his wife. They are old aged persons. Petitioner no.2 is a Tantrik who has, with his ill-motive, married with petitioner no.1. Amita, another daughter of opposite party no.2 was also got married by petitioner no.2 to one Surya Kant Shukla who is also in conspiracy with petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is a land and property grabber who used to grab the property with his ill-intentions. Police has submitted the charge-sheet under section 506 IPC against the accused in accordance with law. Further complaint was filed by oppositeparty no.2 wherein the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused.

11. It is an admitted position that opposite party no.2 had constructed a house. Petitioner no.1 is a daughter of opposite party no.2. Petitioner no.1 got married with petitioner no.2. Dispute arose when a gift deed allegedly executed by the opposite party no.2 in favour of petitioner no.1. Whether petitioner no.2 is a Tantrik or not is a question of fact which could not be decided by this Court in proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. So far as summoning of accused petitioner no.2 under Section 494 IPC is concerned Section 494IPC reads as under:

# Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife

The section says that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

# Section 495 in The Indian Penal Code

# 495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

13. Section 494 IPC is covered under Chapter XX of the IPC. Section 198(1) reads as under:-

# 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage

(1). No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

Provided that-

(a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness for infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;

(b) where such person is the husband and he is serving in any of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) may make a complaint on his behalf;

(c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under [Section 494 or Section 495] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father’s or mother’s brother, sister, [, or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption].

14. Only wife or the husband are the persons aggrieved by offence punishable under section 494 IPC. Section 198 Subsection (1) proviso (c) provides that where the persons aggrieved by an offence punishable under section 494 or 495 IPC is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father.

15. In the present case wife of petitioner no.2 also join with petitioner no.1. So it cannot be said that she is a person aggrieved. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 fairlyconceded that so far as Section 494 IPC is concerned, petition may be allowed to the extent that complaint under section 494 IPC is not legally maintainable.

16. In

# GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust and Others v. India Infoline Ltd., (2013)4 SCC 505

it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-

“14”Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.

17. In

# Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre. (1988)1 SCC 692

this Court held as under: (SCC p. 695 para 7)

“7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie established the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

18. In Pepsi Foods Ltd.(supra) para18 it was held that:

18. In the order dated 9.5.1994, summoning the accused, the first respondent very briefly records the averments made in the complaint and then notes as under:

“In support of the complaint allegations, the complainant has recorded his statement and presented the statement on oath of the witness Lal Bahadur Singh and as documentary evidence notice Annexure 1, receipt for deposit of the bottle of sample for analysis with Public Analyst Annexure 3-A and application to the Public Analyst for analysis Annexure 3-B, report of the incident with P.S.Ghazipur Annexure 4, cash memo issued by the vendor Annexure 5, statements of Executive Director of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Annexure 6, report of the Public Analyst Anneures 7-A and 7-B and prescriptions of the doctor for treatment have been filed.”

19. In

# Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015)3 SCC 424

it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:

“At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or in the other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise of find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. (Para 8)

At the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of the charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage and not at the stage oftaking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. Even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.(Para 9)”

20. If we examine the impugned order in the light of legal propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court we find that the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed reasoned order to arrive at conclusion that, prima facie, case under sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioners. At this stage, scope of petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is also to be seen in Chandra Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy (supra) in para 39, 40, 43 and 44 Hon’ble Apex Court has held the various guidelines for exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C:-

39. This Court in

# State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699

observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law thoughjustice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case (at p.703 of SCC):

“7. ….. In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

40. In

# State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335

this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles oflaw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that 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 to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)

“102. (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.”

43. In

# Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1

this Court after considering series of decisions observed:

“46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

50. Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice— liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.

51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.

52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued.”

44. In

# G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636

this Court observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.”

21. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely,

# State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

# Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296

# Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474

# Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781

# M.N. Ojha and Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682

# State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588

# Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74

# and

# Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (2016) 9 SCC 1

22. In Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others (Supra) Hon’ble the Apex Court has relied upon the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra) wherein it was held that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR should be exercised, there are circumstances where the court may be justified in exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by the police; where the allegations 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; where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and 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. Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered 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; the Court also warned that 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 and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice.

23. In

# Lee Kun Hee and others v. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237

Hon’ble the Apex Court has further laid down, the guidelines for exercise of the power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stageby High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.

24. Learned Magistrate has considered the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statement recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. wherein, prima facie, satisfaction is recorded to proceed with the complaint and to summon the accused under sections 452, 504, 506 IPC. At this stage, learned Magistrate was neither required nor competent to arrive at a concluding finding that the prosecution will end in a conviction or not. But, prima facie, satisfaction was to be recorded by the Magistrate which has been recorded. So far as the question of facts are concerned, learned Magistrate was not required to make a deep scrutiny at the time of issuing an order, summoning the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. At this stage, so far as the summoning order of the learned Magistrate under section 452, 504 506 IPC is concerned this court has also considered the view of learned Magistrate and find that he has exercised his jurisdiction strictly in accordance with law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

25. The charge-sheet under Section 506 IPC was submittedby the investigating officer in Case Crime No.366 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Bhawan Das as well as Lata Singh (supra )and submitted that since petitioner no.1 had married to petitioner no.2 against the wishes of opposite party no.2, hence, in order to take vengeance, he has lodged false FIR. So far as, the aforesaid case law are concerned, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Marriage of the petitioner no.1 with petitioner no.2 was performed in 2008. While according to the opposite party no.2 petitioner no.1 was in contact and in collusion with petitioner no.2 since 2004 and a gift deed was procured fraudulently, thereafter, they started threatening the opposite party no.2. It is specifically mentioned in the first information report that since petitioner no.2 is a Tantrik, daughters of opposite party no.2 are under his influence. In order to grab the property of opposite party no.2, offence of criminal intimidation was committed by the petitioner wherein investigation was conducted and a chargesheet under section 506 IPC was filed. At this stage, there is no reason to quash the charge-sheet or criminal proceedings. These are mix question of facts which can only be appreciated by the learned trail court and this Court in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the factual aspect of the matter.

26. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. Case No.4075 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) of 2011 is allowed to the extent that summoning order under Section 494 IPC is quashed.

27. For rest of the relief in both the petitions, petitions are dismissed.

Comments