Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed before the Court for quashing of the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the DV Act’) and summoning order issued by the Trial Court, Rakesh Kainthla, J.*, opined that the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) could be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court could quash the FIR, if the allegations did not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, however, it was not permissible for it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings. The Court further opined that the Trial Court had discussed the contents of the complaints and the witnesses’ statements to conclude that the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 420 and 427 of the CrPC were not made out, but the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120B were made. Thus, the Court opined that the summoning order was quite detailed and reasoned, and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
Background
In an instant case, the respondents filed a complained against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 406, 407, 379 and 427 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The marriage of Respondent 2 and Petitioner 1 was solemnized on 18-01-2020 as per Hindu rites and customs. It was stated that Petitioner 1 hatched a conspiracy with her parents and brothers, and took all gold and valuable articles, along with cash belonging to the respondents’ family. Thereafter, Petitioner 1’s family member called her father-in-law and told him that Petitioner 1’s mother was admitted in the hospital and requested Petitioner 1 to be sent their immediately.
Thereafter, the lockdown was imposed, and it was not possible to cross the border. Petitioner 1 assured that she would return after fifteen days, but she did not honour her promise. Petitioner 1’s husband i.e. Respondent 2 made repeated requests to send her wife home, but he was threatened not to call. Thereafter, the respondents searched their house and found that valuable articles worth Rs. 15 lakhs were stolen and then the respondents also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act.
The Trial Court opined that there were sufficient reasons to issue summons to the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120B of the IPC. Thus, the petitioners filed the present petition before the Court for quashing of the complaint and summoning order passed by the Trial Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711; Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603; CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, and opined that the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court could quash the FIR, if the allegations did not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, however, it was not permissible for it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings.
The Court opined that it was specifically stated in the complaint that Petitioner 1 had taken gold ornaments and cash worth Rs. 15 lakhs in connivance with her parents. These allegations clearly showed the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120B, at the present stage. Further, with regard to the petitioners’ contention that the Trial Court had not passed a reasoned order, the Court opined that the Trial Court had discussed the contents of the complaints and the witnesses’ statements to conclude that the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 420 and 427 of the CrPC were not made out, but the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120B were established.
The Court opined that the order was quite detailed and reasoned. The Court relied on U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 745; State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539; State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298, and opined that the Trial Court had not issued the summons under all the sections mentioned in the complaint and had given reasons, negate the petitioner’s contention that the Trial Court had not applied its mind, and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
[Abhilasha Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. MMO No. 965 of 2022, decided on 02-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Kush Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General; R.S. Chandel, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
