Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16796 of 2013 Applicant :- Km. Hema And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anirudh Upadhyay,Ram Raj Pandey
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Raj Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 30.3.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 1996 of 2013 in Case Crime no. 85 of 2013, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Baghpat, District Baghpat, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
The prosecution case in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. is that the opposite party no. 2 was married to son of applicant no. 5 on 25.1.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals and sufficient amount, motorcycle and cash was given in the dowry, however, her in- laws used to ill-treat her for demand of dowry; the husband of opposite party no. 2 namely Harish is working as orderly in the court of S.D.M. Udhamsingh Nagar and he after committing marpeet with opposite party no. 2 in collusion with his family members made sit her at Bus-Station on 30.11.2011 when she was carrying pregnancy of two months. It is further alleged that on 13.5.2012 the husband of opposite party no. 2 Harish and two accused persons named in the complaint came to the house of the applicant (O.P. No.-2) at Baghpat and they started hurling abuses and assaulted her. Learned counsel has argued that so far the husband Harish is concerned, since there was specific allegation against him, the Court has refused for quashing the proceeding in Application u/s 482 No. 34594 of 2015 arriving at conclusion that it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out and District Court, Baghpat has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in question and dismissed the same vide order dated 8.8.2017. It is stated that the applicants are facing trial. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are unmarried daughter of Jeth of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 3 is her Jethani, applicant no. 4 is Jeth and applicant no. 5 is mother-in- law; the allegations against all applicants are general and sweeping in nature and specifically it is stated that demand was made by her husband thus keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex court in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and several other decisions rendered by the Court since the opposite party no. 2 has not spared any male female members of her husband, apparently complaint smacks of malafide, therefore, the proceedings may be quashed in respect of the applicants.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed and submitted that infact the applicant no. 5 is main accused, who had instigated son and other family members to torture and ill- treat the opposite party no. 2 for demand of dowry and now the opposite party no. 2 is living with three children at her matrimonial home. He further pointed out that husband Harish is not cooperating with the trial.
Though the co-accused husband Harish is not an applicant before this Court yet I deem it fit to exercise inherent power that the court trying the offence shall ensure presence of accused - husband and expedite the trial against him and decide the same within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.
Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no purpose would be served in keeping the case pending against the applicants and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
The application is allowed. The entire proceeding of the aforesaid case in respect of the applicants no. 1 to 5 is quashed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Dhirendra/