Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18467 of 2014 Applicant :- Ram Prakash And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mahendra Pratap Yadav
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Mahender Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite Party no. 2 and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 01.01.2014 submitted against the applicants in Case Crime No. 562 of 2013, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that one complaint was filed by Smt. Kiran, who is wife of accused applicant no. 1 and daughter of Opposite Party No. 2 of the present case being a complaint case no. 221 of 2012 (Smt. Kiran v. Prakash), in which entire family of the accused applicants have been implicated and all the accused applicants of the present case have also been summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 323, 504, 498- A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, father of the victim has filed present false case against the present accused applicants which consist the husband of the victim, namely Ram Prakash while accused applicant nos. 2 to 7 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and there is no specific allegation made against applicant nos. 2 to 7 except against applicant no.1, who is the husband of the victim with regard to demand of dowry, therefore, charge sheet should be quashed against the applicant no. 2 to 7 as they have nothing to do with the present case.
Reliance has placed by the learned counsel for the accused applicants on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another, 2013 (80) ACC 185 and in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010-SCC (Cr.) 3-473, in which it is laid down that it is often seen that the in-laws of the victim are normally implicated falsely even if there is no specific allegation against them, therefore, they should not be summoned.
Paragraph 14 of the above-mentioned case is as follows:-
"14. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, the complainant-respondent No.2 has obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant's ex-husband. Facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-law's house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as to how they could be implicated into the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra including his parents."
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing of the proceedings and stated that there is allegation against all the accused applicants having demanded one motor-cycle, fifty thousand cash and some jewellery from the victim as well as from her father i.e.
O.P. No. 2, but they could not show any specific piece of evidence including the demand of dowry made by the accused applicant nos. 2 to 7.
I have gone through the F.I.R.
It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that Kiran Devi who is daughter of the Opposite Party No. 2 was married to the accused no. 1, Ram Prakash six years ago according to the Hindu rites, and thereafter, all the accused had started passing adverse comments upon the victim in respect of small amount of dowry having been given in the marriage and the demand was made of one motor-cycle, fifty thousand cash and some jewellery but when the same could not be given, she was driven out of home of the accused applicants. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the applicants.
After having perused the entire evidence as well as averments made in the affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that there is no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry against the accused applicant nos. 2 to 7 and they appear to have been falsely implicated. The sole allegation of demand of dowry is only against the accused applicant no. 1, who is husband of the victim, therefore, in view of the above position of law and having found that there is no specific allegation against the accused applicant nos. 2 to 7, the proceedings against them (applicant nos. 2 to 7) deserve to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed in Case Crime No. 562 of 2013, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
As regards accused applicant no. 1, prayer for quashing of the proceedings is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 A. Mandhani