HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 17558 of 2013
Applicant :- Dhiraj Gupta And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.P. Tiwari,R.S. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amir Khan,R.P.S. Chauhan
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Ms. Kusumlata, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Inspite of revision of cause list, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2, even though the names of Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan and Mr. Amir Khan are duly published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed challenging cognizance taking order dated 10.5.2003, passed by C.J.M Budaun, upon submission of charge-sheet dated 18.4.2013 in Case Crime No. 1594 of 2012, under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun and the entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No. 1756 of 2013 (State Vs. Dhiraj Gupta and Others) under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, pending in the Court of CJM, Budaun.
It transpires from record that marriage of applicant no.1 Dhiraj Gupta was solemnized with opposite party no.2 Smt. Soni Gupta @ Dhanwarsha on 29.6.2012. However, relationship between applicant no.1 and opposite party No.2 became strained on account of marital discard. Faced with despair and destitution, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. dated 23.12.2012, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1594 of 2012, under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons Dhiraj Gupta (husband), Amit Gupta (devar), Sandeep Gupta (devar), Sakshi Gupta (nanad), Rama Gupta (mother-in-law), Kanhaiya Lal Gupta (father-in-law) of the opposite party No.2 were nominated as the named accused. Police upon completion of statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C., submitted charge-sheet dated 18.4.2013. Upon submission of aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance was taken by C.J.M Badaun vide Cognizance taking order dated 10.5.2013. As a consequence of aforesaid, State Case No. 1756 of 2013 (State Vs. Dhiraj Gupta and Others), under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, came to be registered in the Court of CJM, Badaun. Applicants were summoned in the above mentioned Stated case vide summoning order dated 10.5.2013. Thus, feeling aggrieved by summoning order dated 10.5.2013, as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, applicants have approached this court by means of present application.
Present application came up for admission on 22.5.2013 and this Court passed the following interim order:
“Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present matter is a no injury and matrimonial matter and the said matter can be well considered by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It is further contended that there are chances of reconciliation between the husband and wife, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation Centre.
Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, I have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.
It is directed that the applicant no. 1 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of which 70% shall be paid to the opposite party No.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre.
The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that the same may be decided after giving notices to both the parties.
It is directed that the Mediation Centre shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter the case shall be listed before the appropriate Court on 20.8.2013.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicants in criminal case No. 1756 of 2013, under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ujhani, District-Budaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun shall be kept in abeyance, provided the applicant no. 1 deposits the amount as stated above.
After depositing the aforesaid amount, notice shall be issued to the parties and in case, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated. ”
Perusal of interim order dated 22.5.2013 goes to show that present application was dismissed in respect of applicant No.1 Dhiraj Gupta. On account of interim order dated 22.5.2013, trial against applicant no.2 commenced before the Court below and on date, four witnesses of fact have been examined.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicant nos. 2 and 3 are Devars, applicant no.4 is Nanad, applicant no.5 is mother-in-law and applicant no.6 is father-in-law of opposite party No.2. Demand of dowry can be said to have been made by applicant no.1 and therefore, applicant nos. 2 to 6 have been falsely implicated in above mentioned complaint case. She, therefore, placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 ADJ 464, submits that criminal proceedings, insofar as it relates to applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants. He submits that charge-sheet can be challenged only on limited grounds namely that the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter or otherwise proceedings are not maintainable. None of the grounds are attracted in the present case. He therefore submits that present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that charge-sheet has been submitted against applicants after the matter has been duly investigated by Police but no such ground has been urged before this Court, on the basis of which impugned charge-sheet can be quashed.
In view of above, present application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 14.2.2020
Arshad
