Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16602 of 2017 Applicant :- Mayank Jain And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Vikram Singh,Badri Singh,Navin Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi,Vivek Dubey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel fort the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3501 of 2016, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar, including the summoning order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the said court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, arising from pure matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly false and frivolous allegations have been made against all the applicants who are parents and younger brother of applicant no.1. Then, it has been submitted that though the marriage between the parties was performed on 26.04.2016, soon thereafter disputes had arisen between those parties, some of which have been described in the complaint being related to their preferences in life on aspects such as eating habits, religious practices, private conduct and others. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 parted company with applicant no.1 on 18.06.2016 itself, which matter was reported by the applicant no.1 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar vide his application dated 19.06.2016, a copy of which has been appended to the present application. Motivated solely by the aforesaid action taken by the applicant no.1, opposite party no.2 then lodged a patently false and frivolous complaint making allegations of demand of dowry, assault, etc. Then, relying to the statements recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that there is irreconcilable discrepancy in the statements of the complainant and another witness. In her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant described the incident to have taken place on 07.08.2016 whereas Imran in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. described the incident to have taken place on 18.06.2018. Therefore, in any case, it has been submitted that, the allegations made against the applicant nos.2 to 4 are wholly vague and general and therefore, prosecution deserves to be quashed against those applicants.
4. Responding to above, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that, at present, prima facie ingredients of offence alleged are made out inasmuch as the details of the offence of demand of dowry, cruelty and assault have been given with necessary details in the complaint. Those have also been supported by the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (of the complainant) and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (of her close family members). The alleged discrepancy in the statement of Imran is claimed to be inconsequential. He has also placed reliance on the injury report to submit that the allegations are fully supported by the said injury report and therefore, the matter does not call for any intervention by this Court, at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it may be true that plain reading of the complaint alongwith statements of the complainant and her close family members may appear to bring out the ingredients of the offence alleged, however, the learned court below, though has taken note of the fact that the statement of Imran was also recorded, it has escaped the attention of the learned court below that there is material discrepancy as to the date of occurrence in the statements of the complainant and her close family members and that of Imran. The marriage between the parties itself having been performed on 26.04.2016 they appear to have parted company either in June, 2016 or August, 2016 i.e. within four months of the marriage itself. Also, keeping in mind the entirety of the allegations made in the complaint, it does appear that the learned Magistrate ought to have made deeper inquiry into the matter before issuing process against all the applicants.
6. Accordingly, at present, the summoning order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar is set aside against the applicants. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, if necessary, after conducting a proper inquiry in such a manner as may appear proper to that court upon due application of mind to the material existing on record. The above exercise may be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either party.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Abhilash