GAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLED in revised. None appeared to press this application, which has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

(2.) THE applicants have prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated 10.06.2014 and cognizance order dated 07.04.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case Crime No. 21 of 2014, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 506 I.P.C. And Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahil Thana, District Meerut. The usual grounds taken are that the applicants have been implicated falsely, they are innocent, Police has not made investigation properly, there is no credible evidence and the entire proceedings are on account of enmity etc.

(3.) IN Lee Kun Hee and others v. State of U.P. and others : JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it was reiterated 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 stage by 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.