Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6067 of 2001 Applicant :- Smt. Ramwati And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Dr. Arun Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Jha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State of U.P.
2. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash protest petition dated 07.09.2000 filed by opposite party-2 and order dated 17.10.2000 passed by learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1990 of 2000 (State vs. Raj Kumar and others), under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
3. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill-advised application. Contention of learned counsel for applicants is that they have been summoned under Section 406 and 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 859 of 1998 which is second FIR but it is evident from record that the first case in which they were acquitted, was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act whereas present proceedings are for offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC and, therefore, it is apparently a different case.
4. Thus, it is evident from record that Magistrate has proceeded on the basis of investigation conducted by police and after perusal of record of investigation, has found prima facie case and, therefore, rejected final report and summoned applicants and present criminal proceedings have no concern with earlier FIR in which accused-applicants have already been acquitted.
5. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu