Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16513 of 2019 Applicant :- Dinesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chand,Dushyant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2019 by which charge under section 406 I.P.C. has been framed against the applicant in complaint case no. 1377 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Dinesh Chand and others), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bulandshahr.
Brief facts of the case is that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 06.12.2013. The opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint against the applicant no.2 and three other persons on 10.10.2017, which was registered as complaint case no. 1377 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Dinesh Chand and others) in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Bulandshahr alleging therein that the marriage of the applicant no.1 was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on06.12.2013. After her marriage, her-in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded Car in the form of additional dowry. When their demands were not fulfilled by the parents of the opposite party no.2, she was thrown out from the matrimonial house and the applicants kept her all the Stridhan in their possession.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the complaint was made after a lapse of more than three years. All the allegations made in the complaint are false and fabricated. The opposite party no.2 did not want to live with the applicant no.1. The complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is malafide and based on false and fabricated story. The applicant nos. 2 and 3, are the mother and father of applicant no.1, are aged 65 and 67 years respectively and are living separately from applicant no.1. It is further submitted that the court below has failed to consider that the present criminal proceeding against the applicant is nothing but a malicious prosecution of the applicants. It is also submitted that there is no material on record prima-facie to establish that the offence punishable under section 406 IPC is made out against the applicants.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and submitted that after considering the version in the complaint as well as statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate has prima-facie satisfied that a case is made against the applicants, therefore, issued summons to the applicants vide order dated 31.01.2018. Further after considering the entire material on record vide order dated 14.03.2019 the court below has framed the charges and proceeded against the applicants under section 246 of the Code. There is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and the present application deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
The procedure laid down under section 246 of the Code is as follows:
Section 246 :Procedure where accused is not discharged.
(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
(3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
(4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under sub- section (3), he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross- examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken.
(5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross- examination and re- examination (if any), they shall be discharged.
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross- examination and re- examination (if any), they shall also be discharged.
In the instant case, the Magistrate concerned after perusing the entire record available prima-facie found that a case under section 406 I.P.C. is made out to try the applicants. From the evidence available on record as well as considering the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants, I do not find any substantial ground or reason to interfere with the order of the magistrate dated 14.03.2019 framing of charge against the applicants in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Prajapati