Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5895 of 2010 Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinkar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,K.D.Awasthi,Sanjai Pratap Bahadur
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the applicants to press this application.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate, who is present on behalf of the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the chargesheet as well as proceeding of Case No.1616 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.C-11 of 2009 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 516 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
Prosecution case in brief is that opposite party no.2 lodged FIR on 11.07.2009 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 516 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Case Crime No.C- 11 of 2009 at Police Station Kotwali, District Auriya making allegation that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 20.02.2008. After few days of her marriage, she was tortured physically and mentally for demand of dowry by her in-laws. Pursuant to said FIR, chargesheet was submitted against the applicants on 28.07.2009, on which learned magistrate took cognizance on 3.11.2009.
After perusing the record and considering the allegations levelled in the FIR and in the chargesheet, I find that basic ingredients to constitute a prima-facie offence under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 516 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are available on record against the applicants. Record also indicate that the opposite party no.2 had filed maintenance Case No.169 of 2009 under section 125 Cr.P.C., in which compromise took place between the parties, therefore, said case was decided on mutual consent of the parties by order dated 27.08.2009 appended as Annexure No.6 to the application. In the order dated 27.08.2009, it has been recorded by the court that applicant No.1 is ready to keep the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 is also ready to live with applicant no.1, therefore, maintenance case filed by the opposite party no.2 is liable to be rejected.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. However, considering the order dated 27.08.2009 liberty is given to the parties concerned that in case of compromise between them they may move a compromise application before the trial court. On moving such compromise application, the trial court shall decide the same in accordance with law., Order Date :- 30.1.2019 SKD