Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8029 of 2006
Applicant :- Ghure Lal & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,B.D. Mishra
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
None present on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in revised list.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow this petition and quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.3709 of 2005 (Geeta Devi vs. Ghure Lal and others), under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
The opposite party no.2 was married to applicant no.1 in the year 1998. Thereafter, Gauna took place and opposite party no.2 started living peacefully with applicants. In the marriage of applicant no.5, Stridhan of complainant is being given and later on in the marriage of applicant no.4 further articles of opposite party no.2 were given in the marriage and after that opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial place and started living with her parents and her parents consoled her and apprised that the matter may be settled very soon and when the matter is not being settled, an application under Section 156 (3) was being moved by opposite party no.2 which was treated as complaint case and applicants were summoned for facing the trial in the above referred complaint case.
It is submission of learned counsel for the applicants that there is general allegation made in the complaint and initially the opposite party no.2 was happy with the applicants, but it has been alleged in the complaint that articles of opposite party no.2 are being given in the marriage of applicant nos.4 and 5 that is why conflict started. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that at the most case under section 406 of I.P.C., can be said to be made out. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that there is general allegation in the complaint and no offence against the applicants is made out. Learned counsel for the applicants also based his contention on the basis of law propounded in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 181.
It is also submission of learned counsel for the applicants that there is no specific allegation against the applicant no.3, the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that husband and father-in-law abused the opposite party no.2 and tried to assault her. It is then contended by learned counsel for the applicants that a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce was filed by applicant no.1 on 21.3.2005 and only after filing of divorce petition, the complaint case is being instituted on 11.11.2005. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that complaint case is after thought and counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the applicant no.1.
There is specific allegation against the applicant no.1 as well as against applicant nos.2 and 3 that articles of opposite party no.2 are being given in the marriage of applicant nos.4 and 5 and it cannot be said that this fact is not covered under the heading of cruelty and it cannot be believed that father-in-law and mother- in-law will not be party to it while giving the articles in the marriage of applicant nos.4 and 5. Although it can be said that role of applicant nos.4 and 5 in the matter may not be there. So far rest of the allegations are concerned, they are general in nature and there is no specific role in this regard to applicant nos.4 and 5.
So far application of Geeta Mehrotra is concerned, parents are not absolved by the law and in case specific allegations are there, then they are liable to be prosecuted. In the matter in hand there is specific allegation against the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3. So proceeding against the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 cannot be quashed. Complaint case has been filed later on after divorce suit is being filed, but from this fact it cannot be said that allegation made against the applicant nos.1,2 and 3 are false. In matrimonial dispute action is not taken immediately but parties try to settle the matter amicably. Only when settlement does not take place, criminal proceeding is initiated. If divorce suit is earlier to complaint that does not mean it is afterthought and counterblast. Moreover, all these facts are the disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition against the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 is liable to be dismissed, whereas taking clue from Geeta Mehrotra case, the petition against applicant nos.4 and 5 are liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed partly. So far it relates to applicant nos.1, 2 and 3, it is dismissed, whereas the proceeding against the applicant nos.4 and 5 in Complaint Case No.3709 of 2005 (Geeta Devi vs. Ghure Lal and others), under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, is hereby quashed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Ajeet