Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20911 of 2016
Applicant :- Smt. Vimlesh Sharma And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Ker Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
List revised.
Despite service of notice, none present for the opposite party no. 2 nor counter affidavit is filed.
Heard Shri Ram Ker Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 190 of 2015 (State Vs. Surjeet @ Surendra and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 324 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2013, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr. Further prayer has been made to stay the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present matter, two charge-sheet were submitted. First charge- sheet was related to the husband and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and both of them are facing trial. They have not been arrayed as party in the present matter. Second charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicants for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 324 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on 08.01.2015. Applicants approached before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this Court disposed of the application directing the applicants to move discharge application through counsel. It is further submitted that applicants moved discharge application, which was rejected on insufficient grounds. No prima facie case is made out against the applicants. A general role has been assigned against all the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the married Nand of the opposite party no. 2. Applicant no. 4 is the husband of applicant no. 3. Applicant no. 5 is the maternal uncle. Applicant nos. 6 & 7 are the Jaith of the opposite party no. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the contents of the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and further argued that a general role has been assigned against the applicants, they are distant relative of the husband of opposite party no. 2 and are living at their houses situated at district places. It is also argued that they would not be benefited in any way with the demand said to have been made in the matter. It is further submitted that it is also not clear from the prosecution evidence that applicants have caused injury to the opposite party no. 2. Since husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 are facing trial, therefore, continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case on the basis of general role assigned against the applicants is the abuse of process of law. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010- Laws(SC) 886, Ram Saran Varshney and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (1) J.Cr.C. 447, Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and another, 2008(1) CCSC 544 (SC) and argued that application be allowed quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case including charge sheet and cogniznace order.
On the other hand, learned AGA argued that a prima facie case is made out. There is no illegality, infirmity in the cognizance order. Applicants have actively participated in causing the cruelty and harassment to the opposite party no. 2.
I have considered the rival submission and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, only allegation in the FIR against the applicants is that they are in-laws and raising additional demand and also used to beat to opposite party no. 2. Allegation against the applicants is also that they cut the vain of the opposite party no. 2. If the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2 is taken into consideration then also a general role has been assigned to the present applicants. Applicant nos. 1, 2 & 3 are the married sister of husband of opposite party no. 2. They were residing at the time of said offence at their in-laws house situated at district places. Applicant nos. 5 & 6 are also not immediate relative of husband of opposite party no. 2. Applicant nos. 6 & 7 are in-laws but they are elder brother of husband of opposite party no. 2. No specific role is assigned by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicants to cause cruelty to the opposite party no. 2 and also beating to her.
Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case laws, when applicants were not residing in the inlaws house of the opposite party no. 2, they were residing at their houses at distant places and there is general and vague allegation against them, prayer made in the application is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Entire proceeding of impugned order dated 23.04.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr as well as Criminal Case No. 190 of 2015 (State Vs. Surjeet @ Surendra and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 324 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2013, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Sanjeet