CHANDRA KANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. K. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th of May, 2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Case No. 1993 of 2007, whereby the petitioner has been summoned for trial under Sections 494, 498-A, 419, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Pratapgarh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not disclose the offence of Section 498-A IPC as no ingredient of Section 498-A is available for commission of offence under that very Section. He further submits that in the maintenance suit the opposite party No. 2 never raised such allegation and she is getting maintenance as awarded Rs. 400/- per month. He further submits that if the allegations levelled against the petitioner are taken as correct, it has been levelled after 35 years of marriage and the allegations levelled against the petitioner after so many years, cannot be a fortunate cause in order to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. To substantiate his arguments he cited a case i. e. Girdhar Shankar Tawade versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2078, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wilful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498-A and not de horse the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of the matter of a charge under Section 498-A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b), the letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however bring home to charge of Section 498-A against the accused. So far as the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC. is concerned, the remoteness of charges for taking into consideration cannot be seen, as it is open for the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the court concerned for discharge from the charges. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Bharat Parikh versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2008) 10 SCC 109 has held that for the purpose of invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that it is not an appropriate stage for consideration of all these factors. However, as has been pleaded by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to take all these pleas at the appropriate stage before the court below. The petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. .