The case of the appellant is that she was born in a Hindu family and was married in May 2009 when she was a minor (17 years) to one Shiv Gobind Prajapati with whom she never stayed and the marriage was never consummated. In the divorce petition which was filed by Shiv Gobind Prajapati, it was admitted that the marriage was never consummated and this marriage was dissolved through Village Panchayat in 2014 between the families of the appellant and Shiv Gobind Prajapati, who thereafter married another woman, Suman Prajapati and this marriage being voidable under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 3 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 was dissolved and annulled by the families of the appellant and Shiv Gobind Prajapati.
The appellant treating her marriage to be annulled for all practical purposes, while doing her studies in Lucknow, met Mohd. Shameem Khan and they got married on 11th December, 2016 under Sharia law in presence of entire family of her late husband, including respondent no.2/complainant, against the wishes of her family. A certificate of marriage was issued by the competent authority and a translated copy of “Nikah Nama” (Marriage Certificate) was issued by the Languages Department, Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow dated 11th December, 2016.
From this marriage, the appellant gave birth to a male child on 23rd September, 2017 and was living happily with her late husband. Unfortunately, her husband passed away on 8th December, 2017. After the appellant obtained succession certificate in her name and no objection was given by her motherinlaw to the employer of Mohd. Shameem Khan, she got employment in King George Medical University, Lucknow, as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) on compassionate grounds by an order dated 19th May, 2018 w.e.f. 28th April, 2018 and being the legally wedded wife of the deceased (late Mohd. Shameed Khan), his terminal dues were paid to her. The fact is that the entire gratuity amount of Rs.4,60,000/of her late husband was transferred by her to the bank account of her mother inlaw. However, the destiny was not humble to her and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home by respondent no.2 with an eleven months old child on 19th August, 2018 and thereafter respondent no.2 made all kinds of malafide, false and frivolous allegations against the appellant, including to the employer of the appellant to remove her from employment.
After more than a year, at the instance of respondent no.2, a written complaint/FIR came to be registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 IPC at PS Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, U.P. on 9th July, 2019. Anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant and after chargesheet came to be filed on 23rd March, 2021 under Sections 494, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the learned trial Judge took cognizance of the same and summoned the appellant.
At this stage, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings, but that came to be dismissed by the High Court under impugned order dated 8th September, 2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal before the apex court.
The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
Complaint does not have evidence to support the allegations made. The court noted that the Judgment State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Others has provides an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code/ Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2 AIR 2021 SC 1918.
It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in AIR 2021 SC 1918 the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. The court observed that if the criminal proceedings at this stage are allowed to continue against her, then it will be clear abuse of the process of law.
