Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29275 of 2017 Applicant :- Bharat Agarwal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mr Surendra Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. In view of the order dated 6.9.2017, the application on behalf of applicant no.1 stands disposed of .
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Surendra Nath Tripathi learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.04.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.493 of 2017 (State Vs. Bharat Agarwal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2017, under Sections- 498 A, 323,504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Rampur pending in the court of Civil Judge (SD)/FTC, Rampur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants no. 2 and 3 (on whose behalf present application survives) are the father-in-law and the mother- in-law of opposite party no.2. Arising from the matrimonial discord between the opposite party no.2 and her husband, Bharat Agarwal, vague and general allegations have been made against the applicants no. 2 and 3 as well. In this regard, relying on the plain FIR allegation, it has been submitted that this is a case of pure matrimonial discord arising from the reasons other than dowry etc. The opposite party no2. has specifically complained against her husband having not shown her to a good doctor and having insisted to show her to a particular doctor. In this background, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations made against the present applicants, are wholly improbable and irrational. Whatever disputes the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 may have and whatever allegations she may have made against her husband of the demand of dowry, may remain matters to be considered against Bharat Agarwal, however the applicants no. 2 and 3 have no concern with the same.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that at present no detailed enquiry is required to be made and the FIR allegations as also the statement recorded during the investigation, have to be read on face value. Thus, allegations made against the applicants no. 2 and 3 are also liable to be quashed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and having perused the material placed on record, in the light of the specific allegations made by the opposite party no.2 against her husband with respect to her medical condition and the lack of medical care offered to her by her husband, the other general and vague allegations made against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 do not gel. Clearly, it appears that the allegations made against the other applicants (applicants no. 2 and 3) are only to put pressure on applicant no.1 Bharat Agarwal.
7. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.493 of 2017 (State Vs. Bharat Agarwal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2017, under Sections- 498 A, 323,504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Rampur, is hereby quashed against applicant nos. 2 and 3 only.
8. The application on behalf of applicant nos. 2 and 3 is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Meenu