Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35946 of 2016 Applicant :- Indrapal Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Munne Lal
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Rohan Gupta holding brief of Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Munne Lal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 23.05.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 33619 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Nazirabad, District Kanpur Shaher pending in the court of C.M.M., Kanpur Shaher.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are abuse of process of law. Prayer made on behalf of applicant no. 1 Indrapal Singh, husband was rejected on 24.11.2016 and he is facing trial. Applicant nos. 2 to 7 are the family members and they have no concern with the present matter. There is general allegation against them in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. Charge sheet submitted against them and cognizance order passed on the charge sheet is also illegal. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as other documents available on record and further argued that no benefit would be derived by the applicant nos. 2 to 7 with the demand said to have been made in the matter. If entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also applicant no. 1 whose prayer has been refused will only be benefited with the said demand. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and further prayed that application be allowed setting aside the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
Sri Munne Lal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that although, applicant nos. 2 to 7 are the family members but they were actually causing cruelty and harassment in lieu of demand of dowry said to have been disclosed in the F.I.R. to the opposite party no.2. They ousted her from in-laws house and prima facie case is made out to proceed with the trial. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the cognizance order. They can also not be exonerated from their criminal liability only on the basis that they are family members of the husband of the opposite party no.2. Thus, prayer was made to reject the application.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter as is evident from the record that F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 17.07.2015 regarding the offence said to have been committed between 09.03.2014 to 09.07.2015 with the allegation against Indrapal Singh and applicant nos. 2 to 7 that they were raising demand of Rs. 10 lakh as additional dowry and in lieu of said demand they were also causing cruelty and harassment to her. Parents of the opposite party no.2 tried to settle the dispute but applicants were not ready to keep the opposite party no.2 in her in-laws house instead they were insisting for fulfilling the said demand. Efforts were made at several stages to solve the matter but applicants did not agree instead they started again cruelty and harassment. It also appears that matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the applicants for aforesaid offences. Concerned Magistrate on 11.07.2016 took cognizance on the charge sheet.
If the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as evidence annexed with the application and counter affidavit are taken into consideration, it is clear that a general allegation has been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 to 7. Applicants no. 2 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 3 is father-in-law, applicant nos. 4 and 6 are the brothers-in-law (Jeths), applicant nos. 5 and 7 are the sisters-in-law (Jethani) of the opposite party no.2. Allegation is that they were raising additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 10 lakh. Certainly in the present matter, applicant nos. 2 to 7 have been implicated being family members, no specific allegations have been levelled against them. They are charge sheeted in the present matter only on the basis of general allegations and being family members. It appears improbable and unbelievable that applicant nos. 4 to 7 who are jeth and jethani of opposite party no.2 would derive any benefit with the said demand. Applicant nos. 5 and 7 themselves have come in the house of applicant no. 1 after their marriage. If the role assigned to the applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are parents of the husband of the opposite party no.2 is also taken into consideration, they are old age person, they will also directly not take any benefit with the said demand. It appears that applicant nos. 2 to 7 have been implicated in this matter with malafide intention. The case of the applicant nos. 2 to 7 squarely covered with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) case.
Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 to 7 namely Smt. Daljit Kaur, Trilok Singh, Balbir Singh, Smt. Simran Kaur, Avtar Singh and Smt. Shani Kaur are abuse of process of law and application having substance is liable to be allowed. Thus, application is hereby allowed. Entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 to 7 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 AKT