Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.7.2018 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2016 (Brijmohan & others Vs. State) under section 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Rudhauli, District Basti and order dated 21.9.2015 passed by A.C.J.M., Ist, Basti in Complaint Case No. 812 of 2014 (Maina Devi Vs. Rakesh & others), under section 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 812 of 2014 pending before the court of A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Basti.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 4 is husband of O.P. No. 2. The marriage of applicant no. 4 and O.P. No. 2 was solemnized in the year 1999. The applicants have not harassed or tortured to the O.P. No. 2 and there was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant no. 4 has filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights which is still pending. Only to make pressure upon the applicants the O.P. No. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the entire family members of applicant no. 4. It has further been submitted that in fact no offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 21.9.2015 is not in accordance with law. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision no. 11 of 2016 against the summoning order dated 21.9.2015 which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 30.7.2018. The judgment and order of revisional court is also not in accordance with law. In fact the O.P. No. 2 is living in her parental house on her own sweet will. Only to harass the applicants the O.P. No. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that admittedly the O.P. No. 2 is the wife of applicant no. 4 and applicant nos. 1 to 3 are family members of applicant no. 4. In complaint it has been mentioned that applicants have harassed and tortured to the O.P. No. 2 for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousted from their house. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under section 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The revisional court has also not found any illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order, therefore, the revisional court has dismissed the revision filed on behalf of the applicants vide its judgment and order dated 30.7.2018.
A perusal of the record shows that the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 4 Rakesh in the year 1999. The O.P. No. 2 in her complaint as well as in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has made allegation against the applicants and has stated that due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry the applicants have harassed and tortured and also committed marpit with her. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under section 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act. The applicants have preferred a criminal revision no. 11 of 2016 against the summoning order which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 30.7.2018. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the courts below. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned orders dated 30.7.2018 d 21.9.2015 passed by the courts below as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant no. 4 Rakesh 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex 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 or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 4. However, in case, the applicant no. 4 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Masarrat