Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21086 of 2016 Applicant :- Aman Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janardan Prasad Tripathi
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Shri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned complaint dated 21.09.2015 as well as the summoning order dated 06.06.2016 registered as Complaint Case No. 2783 of 2015 (Smt. Pooja Devi Vs. Aman Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. Further prayer has been made to stay the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. Entire family members have been summoned in this matter including the unmarried and married nand. Referring the role assigned to the applicants in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded there-on, it is also argued that applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of general allegation. It appears improbable and unbelievable that applicant nos. 2 to 8, who are the family members or married nand would derive any benefit with the demand i.e. four wheeler and Rs. 2 lakhs. There is no nexus between demand said to have been made in the matter with the role assigned to the applicants nos. 2 to 8. It is further submitted that if entire complaint case is taken into consideration then also applicant no. 1 Aman Kumar, who is the husband may be benefited with the said demand. Applicant nos. 2 & 3, who are the old age parents of the applicant no. 1, applicant nos. 5 to 8, who are unmarried and married nand, similarly applicant no. 4, who is the devar cannot be held responsible for the said demand. It is next contended that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants in the present matter. Continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case against the applicants is the abuse of process of law. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the summoning order. All the applicants were involved in raising the additional demand of dowry causing cruelty to the opposite party no. 2 as well as beating her. At this juncture, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also referred to the contents of the complaint as well as statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and further argued that on one day, entire family members took the opposite party no. 2 on four wheeler and left her near the Sasni Hospital. They also caused marpeet on that place. Incident was witnessed by witnesses. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it is further submitted that a prima facie case is made out to proceed with trial against all the persons.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2. Demand made in the complaint said to have been raised on part of the applicants is that after marriage, they raised additional demand of four wheeler and Rs. 2 lakhs. They also used to beat her. If the role assigned to the applicant no. 1, who is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and demand said to have been made in the matter are compared with the submissions raised across the Bar, prayer made in respect of applicant no. 1 Aman Kumar, who is the husband of opposite party no. 2 is not liable to be allowed. It cannot be said that he will not be benefited in any way with the demand said to have been made in the matter. Thus, prayer made in respect of applicant no. 1 Aman Kumar is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case applicant no. 1 surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. It is made clear that the applicant no. 1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
As far as role assigned to the applicant nos. 2 to 8 is concerned, applicant nos. 2 & 3 the parents of husband of opposite party no. 2 are old aged person. They will not be benefited in any way with the demand said to have been made in the matter. No specific role has been assigned in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. against them. It appears that they have been summoned in the present matter only on the basis that they are the parents of the husband of opposite party no. 2.
As far as role assigned to the applicant no. 4 is concerned, it is mentioned in the para no. 4 that he outraged the modesty of the opposite party no. 2. Complaint was made by opposite party no.
2 regarding the conduct of applicant no. 4 to the applicant nos. 2 & 3 but no action was taken by them against the applicant no.
4. If the facts mentioned in the complaint regarding the involvement of the applicant no. 4 in the present matter as well as statement made by the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are taken into consideration, complainant has not made clear the date, time and place of offence of outraging the modesty of the complainant. It is also evident from the record that general allegations have been levelled against the applicant no. 4, who is the devar regarding demand of dowry and causing cruelty. Applicant nos. 5 to 8 are unmarried and married nand. It appears improbable and unbelievable that they would derive any benefit with the said demand. Applicant nos. 6 to 8 are married nand. Naturally, they would have been living in their in-laws house after marriage. Applicant no. 5 Km. Jyoti, who is unmarried nand will also go to her in-laws house after marriage.
Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nexus between the role of the applicant nos. 2 to 8 with the demand said to have been made in the matter, the Court is of the view that applicant nos. 2 to 8 have been implicated in this matter only on the ground that they are family members. They will not be benefited in any way with the said demand directly. The case of the applicant nos. 2 to 8 is squarely covered with the law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) case and prayer made in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 8 for the reasons discussed here-in-above is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part.
The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2783 of 2015 (Smt. Pooja Devi Vs. Aman Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 8 are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Sanjeet