Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14030 of 2006 Applicant :- Chetan And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gourav Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
3. No one is present on behalf of the private respondent to oppose this application.
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the husband, a brother-in-law, two sisters-in-law (and their husbands), of opposite party no.2. While applicant no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no.2, applicant no.2 is the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2, applicant nos. 3 and 4 are married sisters-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and applicant nos.5 and 6 are the husbands of applicant nos.3 and 4, respectively. The present application has been filed for the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this application and quash the complaint (Annexure no. 1) vide Complaint Case No. 6222 of 2004, Under Section 498A I.P.C., Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Bulandshahar.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 6222 of 2004, Under Section 498A of I.P.C., Police Station Jahangirabad, District-Bulandshahar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Bulandshahar during pendency of this application and/or pass any other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. A perusal of the FIR giving rise to the present prosecution brings out, the informant had disclosed her marriage to applicant no.1 on 17.01.2001, upon exchange of certain dowry. Thereafter, she alleged, her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and that they started causing harassment to her. The allegation of physical and verbal assault were also made. Thereafter, she further alleged, some efforts were made by her brother to make good sense prevail on her in-laws, however, they did not heed to good counsel. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 was thrown out from her marital home on 03.05.2003. Though none of the applicants were specifically named in the allegations pertaining to dowry and only vague and general allegations were made against all of them by referring to the accused persons as 'in-laws', however, with regard to the allegation of the opposite party no.2 being thrown out from the marital home on 03.05.2003, reference was made to all the applicants, by name.
6. On 13.11.2006, the following interim order was passed in this case:-
"Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6222 of 2004, under Section 498-A I.P.C., relating to police station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bulandshahar shall remain stayed only against applicant no. 2 Arvind, applicant no. 3 Smt. Seema, applicant no. 4 Smt. Saroj, applicant no. 5 Pramod and applicant no. 6 Rajesh.
Looking to the facts of the case it is hereby directed that if, the applicant no. 1 Chetan (husband), appears and/or surrenders before the court concerned and make an application for bail his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible if possible on the same day."
7. No counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2 and her counsel is also not present. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, while no denial has been made to the present application, meanwhile, applicant no.1 was enlarged on bail and he has been cooperating at the trial which is still pending. Also, upon instructions, he states, a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000/- is being paid to the opposite party no.2 by applicant no.1.
8. Perusal of the affidavit in the present application reveals, it has been specifically stated, applicant no.2 (brother-in-law) was in service at the relevant time, while applicant nos.3 and 4 were married sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 who were residing at their respective matrimonial homes with applicant nos.5 and 6 respectively, since long before the allegation was made by opposite party no. 2. It has also been specifically stated, none of these applicants had played any role in the matrimonial discord that may have existed between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2. In any case, no demand of dowry had ever been made by them.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it appears in the first place in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741, general and vague allegations levelled against all 'in-laws' without specification of any allegation to particular person, may never be sufficient to constitute the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. The only allegation made of the applicants having collectively thrown out the opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial home. Even in that regard, the allegation is wholly vague inasmuch as the place from where she may have been thrown out had not been disclosed in the FIR.
10. In absence of a counter affidavit, it is undisputed that applicant nos.2, 5 and 6 were at the relevant time in service and having a separate living. Further, applicant nos.3 and 4 were more than 50 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, presumably they would have been married much earlier. There is no material to doubt that assumption. In such facts, it does appear that the prosecution against applicant nos.2 to 6 is based wholly on general and vague allegations arising solely on account of matrimonial discord and or other dispute that may be existing between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2. With respect to the demand of dowry, there does not exist any specific allegation against applicant nos.2 to 6.
11. In view of the aforesaid, it appears the applicant nos. 2 to 6 have been casually roped in the prosecution case, to put the blame on all family members of the opposite party no.2 for her grievance/s existing against applicant no.1, arising from matrimony. Though the exact reasons for such conduct of opposite party no. 2 are not required to be gone into at this stage, however, it does appear the allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 6 are wholly casual, general and vague. Even otherwise, they are not enough or the minimum required to warrant continuance of the prosecution against applicant nos.2 to 6. If allowed to continue, it would result in abuse of the process of court and defeat the ends of justice. Thus the present application on behalf of applicant nos.2 to 6 is allowed. The prosecution against those applicants is hereby quashed.
12. It is further made clear, the proceeding against the present applicant no.1 may continue as before and may be decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. All statutory rights and procedures, otherwise available to the parties, including the right of the applicant/accused to seek discharge, if not already availed, shall also remain intact. His application is thus disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 S.Chaurasia