Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42333 of 2019 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application has been filed by the applicants under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.5.2019 passed by C.J.M., Mainpuri in complaint case no. 1960 of 2017, Varsha Gupta Vs. Vivek Gupta and others, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri .
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that O.P. No.2 was married to Vivek Gupta son of applicant no.1, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants used to torture her and maltreat her and committed cruelty and has turned her out of her matrimonial home.
On the allegations made in the complaint and after recording the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial vide order dated 5.1.2018.
Against the said order dated 5.1.2018 the applicants preferred application under section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7408 of 2018 wherein the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding was refused and the applicants were directed to appear before court below and apply for bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 7.3.2018 of this Court, the applicants have already been released on bail. After being released on bail the applicants moved an application for their discharge in the aforesaid case. The said application has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 27.5.2019.
Against the order dated 27.5.2018 refusing discharge the present application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that on the basis of allegations made against the applicants departmental proceedings was initiated against them in which the applicants have been exonerated and therefore the applicants are liable to be discharged from the criminal proceedings also.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and requite material collected during course of enquiry, learned magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial and primafacie offence is made out against them as such the applicants can not be discharged. The departmental proceedings will have no bearing upon the present proceeding. The impugned order passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both parties and taking into consideration that learned magistrate after considering the allegations made in the complaint and after making requisite enquiry has summoned the applicants to face trial and from the allegations made in the complaint and statements of witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. primafacie offence is made out against the applicants as such they can not be discharged. Furthermore, the exoneration of the applicants in departmental proceedings will have no bearing upon criminal proceedings.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.
The present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 R