Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35138 of 2018 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
As per the office report dated 25.7.2019, notice upon the O.P. No.2 has been served through her father. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor anybody has put in appearance on his behalf.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.7.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court no.2/Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 989/9 of 2018 (Smt. Priyanka Vs. Jitendra & Ors),under Sections- 498-A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station- Jansath, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
This Court vide order dated 4.10.2018 directed the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to face trial and appear before the courts concerned and apply for bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that so far as the allegation made against applicant nos. 3 to 7 are concerned they are brother in law (Jeth), sister-in law (Jethani) and Nanand of O.P. No.2, the general and vague allegation have been made against them which is apparent from the bare perusal of the complaint and all of them are residing separately from applicant nos. 1and 2.
In support of his contention he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741; the paragraph no. 24 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-
accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law.
Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over- implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission of counsel for the applicant for quashing the aforesaid proceedings.
I have perused the complaint and the entire material available on record.
The allegation against the applicant nos. 3 to 7 are general in nature and in view of the aforesaid judgment of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 989/9 of 2018 (Smt. Priyanka Vs. Jitendra & Ors),under Sections- 498-A 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station- Jansath, District- Muzaffar Nagar in respect of applicant nos. 3 to 7 is hereby quashed.
So far as the applicant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the application stands rejected.
The present application stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Akbar