Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29118 of 2019
Applicant :- Anshul Tripathi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal,Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh,Shrawan Kumar Ojha
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal and Sri Rahul Pandy, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1524 of 2019 State Vs. Anshul Tripathi and others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in respect to the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in respect to the applicant no. 4, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit as well as the charge sheet dated 27.05.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 493 of 2018.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that O.P. No. 2 is daughter-in-law of applicant nos. 2 and 3 and the accused applicant no.4 is brother-in-law of the Opposite Party no. 2 and accused applicant no.1 is husband of the Opposite Party no. 2. It is further argued that this is a matrimonial dispute and O.P. No.2 has concocted a false story after exaggerating the facts which is highly improbable; It is alleged that in presence of father-in-law and mother-in-law, the brother-in-law is alleged to have tried to outrage the modesty of O.P. No.2 and even tried to commit rape upon her. At the time of the occurrence the husband of the Opposite Party no. 2 was in Mumbai. There are huge discrepancies in statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. with regard to the commission of rape upon her. The investigating Officer has investigated the case in superficial manner and submitted charge-sheet in routine manner which is nothing but malicious prosecution of the accused. It is further argued that the statement of grand-mother of the O.P. No.2 who is being stated to be witness of the said occurrence and whose statement is said to have been recorded, had already died long back which itself shows that the investigation is full of many lacunae, hence charge-sheet needs to be quashed. It is next argued that the victim had consumed liquid of good-night, pursuant to which she was got admitted in hospital from 11.01.2018 to 13.01.2018 by accused applicant no.1. She was also shown to a psychiatrist and she was held to be a patient of Evolving Borderline Personality Disorder and the arrest of the accused was stayed earlier by this Court on this very ground.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of quashing and have argued that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was credited in the account applicant no.4 by father of O.P. No.2 by way of dowry. The victim has supported the prosecution version regarding rape being committed upon her by accused applicant no.4 in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that Nirmala W/o Rama Kant Pandey was wrongly written by I.O. whereas, it should be written as W/o Ram Kumar. The aforesaid Nirmala is mausi of victim and it cannot be said that she is not alive and the investigation is made by I.O. in fair manner.
I have gone through the F.I.R.
In F.I.R., it is stated that applicant no.1 was married to O.P. No.2 on 12.02.2016 through paper advertisement and total sum of Rs. 19,03,930/- was spent by parents of O.P. No.2 in her marriage but soon after her arrival at matrimonial home, demand of dowry was started to be made for various items and for non-fulfilment of the same, she was ill treated by all the applicants. Whenever she went to her husband's house in Mumbai, she was given mental torture and she had to suffer miscarriage also. Her father-in-law used to have ill eye upon her and when this was disclosed to her mother-in-law, she used to be beaten. Quarrel had also started for non-fulfilment of dowry between her and father-in-law and Devar and, thereafter her Devar i.e. accused applicant no.4 tried to outrage her modesty by entering her room and in this process, she was also about to be assaulted by knife; father-in-law of the victim also wanted to throttle her. Looking to the threat to her life, she returned to her parents' house on 18.02.2018. On 10.05.2018, her devar made assault upon her at 7:00 p.m. by fists, kicks and knife. She had been admitted in Government Hospital where she was given treatment, the injury memo of the same has also been annexed at page no. 72 of the paper book. After investigation in this case, police has submitted charge-sheet under the above- mentioned section.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, the applicant may approach the trial court to seek discharge, if so advised, and before the said forum, he may raise all the pleas which have been taken by him here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with. The committal court shall commit the case within 30 days subject to compliance of provision of Section 209 Cr.P.C. to facilitate the trial court to hear and dispose of discharge application.
The applicant may appear before committal court within 30 days to get his case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused does not appear before the Committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 VPS