Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23643 of 2017 Applicant :- Rashid Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Chandra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the description of opposite party no. 2 in the array of the parties, during the course of the day.
2. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 07.09.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 293 of 2016 (Smt. Heena Vs. Rashid and others) under sections 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Agra, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-Vth, Agra.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, arising from the matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, wholly wild and vague allegations have been made against all family members of applicant no.1 in the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2. Though it has been alleged in the complaint that the married sister of applicant no. 1 along with her husband used to stay with applicant no. 1, the same is plainly false and motivated. That apart, it has been submitted, the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs made against eight persons/family members, in any case, on the face of it, is highly improbable keeping in mind the varied relationship between the parties. All the eight accused persons, the applicant and his four brothers; sister in law (Bhabhi); a nephew and; a married sister along with her husband have been accused. Then, it has been submitted, though the allegation of assault had been made, there is no evidence of any injury suffered by opposite party no. 2. The statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is thus stated to be wholly vague and inadequate. The statement of Arif, who has not even disclosed his relationship with the complainant, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is equally vague and general. He does not even disclose himself to be an eye-witness of any particular incident but had somehow sought to support the complaint.
5. In such facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits, the entire complaint is general and vague and is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA, on the other hand submit, at this stage, the factual accuracy or otherwise of the complaint allegations and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. need not be gone into and insofar as the plain reading of the complaint does appear to suggest the occurrence of the incident. The application does not warrant any interference.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint keeping in mind the principle down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it is seen that the allegations against the applicant nos. 2 to 4 are vague and general and such as appear to be highly improbable keeping in mind the relationship of those applicants with applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 and also keeping in mind the demand of dowry claim to have been made in the complaint. Neither there is any injury report nor there is any independent witness of the prosecution narrated in the complaint.
8. Therefore, the proceeding against the applicant nos. 2 to 4 is hereby quashed.
9. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, it appears that the ingredients of offence are made out against him, at this stage, inasmuch as it is not for this Court to go into the factual aspect of the matter.
10. However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1.
11. The money that is lying in deposit with the Mediation Centre may be returned to the applicants forthwith.
12. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Prakhar