Allahabad High Court dismisses plea against FIR in dowry case with cost of Rs 1 lakh
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition observing that the applicants have not approached the Court with clean hands and filed a false affidavit.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Umesh Kumar Yadav And Another.
By means of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding of complaint case under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Handia, district Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
A complaint was filed on August 28, 2017 by complainant Kamla Shanker Yadav arraigning Umesh Kumar Yadav, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Gulab Devi and Phula Devi with the allegations that the marriage of her daughter, Jyoti Yadav, was fixed with applicant No 1, Umesh Kumar Yadav on May 22, 2017.
Pre-marriage ceremonies were held in which Rs 1 lakh was given to Mahesh Yadav, a gold ring and a sum of Rs 11,000 were given to Umesh Yadav. In addition thereof, money and clothes were also given to the persons attending the ceremonies. In the feast of Godh Bharai, Rs 75,000 was spent.
It is further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant made the bookings of all necessary things for which about Rs 50,000 was given as advance. On May 9, 2017, when the complainant went to the house of the accused for fixing the date of Tilak ceremony, they demanded Rs 5 lakh in cash, a motorcycle and a gold chain.
Also Read: Supreme Court reserves order in plea against bail granted to law student in rape case
When the complainant along with his family members and relations went to the house of the accused on May 10, 2017, they abused them and behaved in an undignified manner and refused to perform the marriage, which was fixed for May 22, 2017.
After examining the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and witnesses Dharmendra Kumar and Manish Kumar under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate vide order dated September 20, 2018 summoned the applicants to face trial.
Prior to lodging of the instant complaint, the complainant has also lodged an FIR against the accused-applicants at case under Sections 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Handia, district Prayagraj almost on the same set of facts.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Magistrate dated September 20, 2018 summoning the accused applicants, the applicants have challenged the same by means of filing Application U/S 482, which was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of the Court order dated January 21, 2019.
Pursuant to the order of the Court dated January 21, 2019, the applicant has moved the application before the court concerned, which is stated to be pending.
Now, the applicants have filed a second application with the prayer that the entire criminal proceedings of the complaint case be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Umesh Kumar Yadav is the deponent of the case.
Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses plea of in-service candidates for availing unfilled quota seats
On March 3, 2022, when this case was taken up for the first time, a preliminary objection was raised by Anil Kumar Srivastava, counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, that this is the second application U/s 482 CrPC on false facts as no compromise has taken place between parties and averments made in this regard in the instant application are totally false and baseless.
On March 15, 2022, when the case was taken up Jay Singh Yadav, counsel for the applicants, prayed for one more opportunity to comply with the order dated March 4, 2022.
After the order of the Court dated Mach 3, 2022, the applicants played hide and seek with the court and tried to obtain interim order from the Court by hook or by crook and when the applicants failed to achieve their nefarious design, on March 28, 2022, when the case was taken up Jay Singh Yadav, counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicants are not responding to his call and the Court may pass orders as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Having heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and examining the matter in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the applicants have approached the Court with unclean hands. By means of the application the applicants have tried to misguide the Court by stating that compromise has been arrived at between the parties, but the fact is that no compromise has been effected as stated by the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. In spite of the undertakings given by the counsel for the applicants, on the basis of the instructions of the applicants, it appears that the applicants have no respect to the orders of the Court, the Court observed.
Also Read: Supreme Court appoints former SC judge AM Sapre to assist Unitech board
The Court said, ‘Since the applicants have not approached the Court with clean hands and filed false affidavits before the Court that the matter has been compromised, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by the Court.
The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He/she can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.
Time and again the issue of abuse of process of law has come up before the Supreme Court as well as High Courts. The Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts.
The Court further observed that, having considered the factual aspect of the case and the dictum of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the applicants have misused the process of law by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C on false facts that the matter has been compromised. Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time.
Also Read: Supreme Court says law amended in 2016 cannot have retrospective effect on 2011 transaction
‘In view of the above discussion, the application is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs 1 lakh to be deposited by the applicants within 45 days with the Registrar General of the Court, failing which the same shall be recovered from the applicants as arrears of land revenue. On depositing the said amount, Rs 50,000 shall be released in favour of the complainant/opposite party No 2 and remaining Rs 50,000 shall be forwarded by the Registrar General of the Court to the account of Rajkiya Bal Greh Shishu, Allahabad being Account, State Bank of India, Khuldabad Branch, Prayagraj, which shall be used for the welfare of the children’
-the Court ordered.