Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2613 of 2011 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt . Advocate,Ghanshyam Yadav
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1169 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Fatehpur.
It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that father of opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint and after the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., only applicant no. 2 was summoned for facing the trial under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It is next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that a second complaint has been filed by opposite party no. 2 concealing the fact of the earlier complaint filed by the father of opposite party no. 2 on the similar ground except adding the incident dated 10.5.2009 and trial court after considering the evidence that has been produced under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also perusing the complaint, summoned all the applicants for facing the trial. It is further submission of the learned counsel that except for the incident dated 10.5.2009, all the allegations are similar in both the complaints and complainant concealed the facts from Court and was not clean hands. So far as the incident dated 10.5.2009 is concerned, only applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are being implicated whereas all the applicants are being summoned. It is further submission of the learned counsel that incident dated 10.5.2009 is false and fabricated one and just being added to make fresh complaint against the applicants whereas learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that both the complaints are different and related to different incident and trial court has rightly passed the order for summoning the applicants for facing the trial. It is also submission of the learned counsel that all the witnesses, those were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the case of the complaint and also implicated all the applicants regarding the demand of dowry and other allegations.
From the facts it can be inferred that both the complaints are filed on the similar grounds except for incident dated 10.5.2009. In the earlier complaint that was filed on 26.6.2008, trial court after considering all the evidence that was produced before it, summoned only applicant no. 2 for facing the trial whereas allegations against rest of the applicants were not found sufficient for summoning them. In the present case, which was filed on 4.9.2009, trial court summoned all the applicants. The fact was already considered by the trial court in the earlier complaint against all the applicants regarding the allegations except for incident dated 10.5.2009 and accordingly same could not have been raised again before the trial court concerned and opposite party no. 2 ought to have given correct facts before the court concerned which is not being done. In the incident dated 10.5.2009, involvement of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been shown and that is why, summoning of applicant nos. 1, 5 and 6 could not have been made in view of earlier order but for concealing of facts on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and that is why inducing the court concerned to pass such order for summoning the applicant nos. 1, 5 and 6 also. So far as the incident dated 10.5.2009 is concerned that is certainly an afterthought and has been included in the complaint just to make a second complaint and it cannot be denied that the same has been inserted just to implicate all the applicants whereas in the first complaint father of the opposite party no. 2 failed to get all the applicants summoned. This is a blatant misuse of the process of law and same cannot be allowed to remain. The Court is always there to protect the interest of a person who has come before the court bonafidely and clean handed and not a person who is concealing the facts and has come with dubious mind just to make the complaint plausible. Incident has been added in the second complaint, that is being disputed in the present petition, dated 10.5.2009 and the story that has been shown in the complaint is also improbable and unbelievable as nobody will go alongwith ladies to take part in panchayat and that too at the house of the opposite party and also take part in the incident for abusing and intimidation. At the most it can be said that certain panchayat took place but no settlement could be reached but no offence committed. As such, summoning of applicant nos. 2, 3 and is bereft of merit and evidence.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that second complaint is misuse of process of law and same cannot be allowed to remain.
The petition is allowed.
The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1169 of 2010, under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, against the applicants, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Fatehpur, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Ranjeet Sahu