Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8594 of 2017 Applicant :- Karan Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manisha Chaturvedi,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturv Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire Complaint Case No. 1040 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, under Sections-323, 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C., and u/s ¾ D.P. Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Gadhmukteshwar, Police Station- Simbhawali, District- Hapur.
4. Arguments that have been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant has been noted in the detailed in the order dated 22.05.2017, when the matter was entertained and interim protection was granted.
5. According to the submissions, the order dated 22.05.2017 itself being extracted so as to record this submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for opposite party NO.1 and Sri A.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel who has put in appearance today on behalf of opposite party no.2.
The leading Application under Section 482 no.8594 of 2017 has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no.2 praying to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.1040 of 2016 (Shikha Sharma Vs. Karan Sharma and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Simbhawali, District - Hapur. The applicant has further prayed to quash the summoning order dated 22.2.2017 which is totally non speaking.
The connected Application under Section 482 no.8423 of 2017 has been filed by the parents of the applicant of the leading application, namely, Sri Vinay Sharma and Smt. Bina Sharma. They have also prayed for the same relief as has been prayed in the leading Application no.8594 of 2017. The proceedings and the impugned summoning order are common in both the aforesaid applications under Section 482.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 has filed a false and malicious complaint dated 23.12.2016 in which the impugned summoning order dated 22.2.2017 has been passed which is totally non speaking. She submits that the allegation of the opposite party no.2 is that she had performed Court marriage with the applicant of application no.8594 of 2017. It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 had given an affidavit that she was unmarried. However, subsequently it came to notice that the opposite party no.2 was married with one Sri Anurag Singh Son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of house no.80 Village & Post Pabni Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhari, District - Yamunanagar, who filed HMA case No.37 A of 2014 on 7.4.2014 in the Court of District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in that case the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage on 9.10.2014 was passed. It is submitted that the applicant in the leading application was appearing in the B.Tech Engineering 1st Semester examination from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (Harayana Engineer College) which commenced from 14.12.2016 and on 23.12.2016 i.e. on the alleged date of incident he appeared in the paper "Communication skills in English". He submits that applicant no.1 in the connected application had lodged an F.I.R. on 17.9.2016 against the opposite party no.2 under Sections 294, 323, 452, 506 I.P.C. being FIR No.337 dated 17.9.2016, P.S. Farakpur, District - Yamuna Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR it is stated by the applicant no.1 of the connected application (father in law of opposite party no.2) that he has ousted his son Karan Sharma from his house and properties but the girl, namely, Shikha Sharma, forcibly entered in his house alleging that she is wife of Karan Sharma. She started abusing and threatening. It is also alleged that he does not know whether she is wife of his son Karan or not and he has no concern with the said girl but she has forcibly entered in his house and threatened to kill. A case No.124, CIS No. HMA/603 of 2016 (Karan Sharma Vs. Shikha Sharma) was instituted on 27.6.2017 by the applicant Sri Karan Sharma against the opposite party no.2 in the Court at Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the alleged marriage.
From the fact and submissions as briefly noted above it prima face appears that the allegation of demand of dowry by the applicants of both the aforesaid applications is highly improbable and appears to be abuse of process of Court by the opposite party no.2.
It appears to be prima facie un-convincing on the facts as briefly noted above that the husband or the father in law or mother in law and other family members would go to the parents' home of the opposite party no.2 and shall demand dowry. That apart the impugned summoning order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate is only of four lines, observing that considering the circumstances the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the opposite parties, namely, Karan Sharma, Vinay and Smt. Bina are being summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act.
It is also relevant to mention that despite order dated 11.4.2017 passed in the connected application, the opposite party no.2 has not yet filed counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Applicants shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of eight weeks before the appropriate Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly noted above, further proceedings of complaint case no.1040 of 2016, (Shikha Sharma Vs. Karan Sharma and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Simbhawali, District - Hapur shall remain stayed till further orders.
This case shall not be treated as part heard or tied up with this bench. "
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 had entered into live-in relationship after the dissolution of the first marriage of opposite party no.2. It is also a fact that the marriage between the parties was held on 5.07.2016 whereas, the first marriage of the opposite party no.2 was dissolved on 09.10.2014.
7. Under the circumstances, it has been submitted that the parents of the applicant have been demanding dowry from the opposite party no.2, and upon non satisfaction of such demand, they had also assaulted, while the applicant would claim otherwise. It remains the fact that the marriage between Karan Sharma and opposite party no.2 was a registered marriage performed by those parties of their own will, and there does appear to exist any material to suggest that the said marriage was performed with the consent or involvement of the parents of the said Karan Sharma.
8. The allegations of the opposite party no.2 having concealed the fact of first marriage apart from, in view of own case of the opposite party no.2 having live-in relationship with Karan Sharma for the last more than five years before their marriage, would clearly suggest that the opposite party no.2 was married and that marriage was subsisting when she entered into a live-in relationship with the said Karan Sharma.
9. In any case, in view of the facts noted above, the allegation of demand of dowry, is clearly unconvincing, unbelievable and highly improbable. The same appears to have been made only to lend colour the story and to pressure the said Karan Sharma to resolve his dispute with the opposite party no.2.
10. This being criminal proceedings specifically on allegations of demand of dowry, assault etc., in absence of any credible material, it is difficult to allow such proceedings to continue in the background facts noted above.
11. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed, leaving it open to the parties to settle all their dispute before the civil forum.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 M. ARIF