Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24808 of 2017 Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Gupta,Dewarshi Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Nath Tiwari,Veerendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shailendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 25.3.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.683 of 2017 (State Vs. Ramesh Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.412 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Allahabad pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that arising from the matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, false and frivolous allegation have been made against the applicants. In this regard, admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place in the year 2004 and they have three children born from the marriage. Arising purely out of misunderstanding and misgivings, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2013 making false allegation of payment of dowry etc. The statement recorded during the investigation, is also vague.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that the allegations are against all the applicants and FIR and the statement do bring out the ingredients of offence.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that in so far as applicants no. 2 and 3 are concerned, there are no specific allegation against them. It is also undisputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2004 and they have three children. As to the allegation of demand of dowry and assault, it appears that only general and vague allegations have been made against the applicants no. 2 and 3. There is no independent witness for the injury report to support the allegation.
6. Accordingly, keeping in mind the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (2010) 7 SCC 667, the proceedings against the applicants no. 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed.
7. So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely, Ramesh Yadav is concerned, looking into the entire material on record, the allegation of demand of dowry has been made against him. Thus, in this factual matter, the ingredients of the offence against him appear to be complete and therefore, the relief for quashing of the proceedings is declined.
8. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant no. 1.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of against the applicant no.1.
10. So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the present application is allowed and prosecution of those applicants is quashed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Meenu