Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13939 of 2021 Applicant :- Vivekanand Maurya And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge- Sheet dated 02.10.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 674 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Mohammadabad, District-Mau, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division), Fast Track Court No.2, Mau in Criminal Case No.1640 of 2020 (State vs. Vivekanand and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Mohammadabad, District-Mau as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case, now pending in the court of Judcial Magistrate, Mau.
4. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case. Allegations made in FIR are false and concocted. Dispute between parties is essentially a matrimonial dispute. Applicant-1 is husband of Opposite Party-2. Relationship between applicant-1 and opposite party-2, who are husband and wife became strained on account of marital discord. A matrimonial dispute has now been dragged into criminal litigation. Entire family of applicant-1 has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 10.09.2020. It is then contended that Applicant-1 is husband whereas applicant-2, Om Prakash is father-in-law, applicant-3, Smt. Krishnawati Devi is mother-in-law, applicant-4, Abhishek Kumar is brother-in-law and applicant-5, Km. Kirti Maurya @ Priti Maurya is sister-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party-2. Material on record does not support the prosecution of present applicants. As such present criminal proceedings are not malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed this application. He contends that subsequent to FIR dated 10.09.2020, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses examined by Investigating Officer have substantially supported the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected during course of investigation, which is subsequently adverse to applicants. Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet dated 02.10.2020. Perusal of charge sheet goes to show that same has been submitted against all the named accused in FIR i.e. applicants herein. In the charge sheet so submitted as many as six prosecution witnesses have been nominated. He therefore, contends that it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support prosecution of applicants. He has also referred to paragraph-37 of the judgment in State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta, AIR 2019 SC.2499. It is then contended that charge sheet is outcome of investigation. Since investigation has not been pointed out to be defective, irregular or illegal, the consequential charge sheet cannot be challenged. However, he could not dispute the fact that dispute between parties is primarily a matrimonial dispute. .
6. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.
7. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned AGA.
8. Issue notice to opposite party-2.
9. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the next date fixed in the notice.
10. List for admission on the date fixed in the notice before appropriate Bench.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case brought on record coupled with the fact that Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court is not working on account of pendamic Covid-19 as an interim measure as it is provided that until further orders of this Court further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1640 of 2020 (State vs. Vivekanand and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Mohammadabad, District- Mau shall remain stayed only against applicants-2 and 5.
12. However, pendency of this application or interim order passed today shall not be taken as a ground by court below or applicant-1 for stay of proceedings of above mentioned Criminal case against applicant-1.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Ashish Pd.