SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rahul Rathor And 08 Others vs State Of Up And Another on 12 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8864 of 2019

Applicant :- Rahul Rathor And 08 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,Neeharika Sinha Narayana

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

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 entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 39 of 2017, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(B), 406, 313, 376, 511 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Allahabad including charge-sheet dated 21.8.2018 and cognizance order dated 21.8.2018 passed by the A.C.J.M., Allahabad.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are ladies. The offence under section 376/511 IPC is not made out against the applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The applicant no. 9 Ashok Kumar Gupta is not the family member of in-laws of victim. In fact, the marriage of victim was solemnized with applicant no. 1 Rahul Rathor. There is a matrimonial dispute in between the applicant no. 1 and his wife. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged by the father of victim. The offence under section 313 IPC is also not made out against the applicants. The I.O. has not conducted the fair investigation. The O.P. No. 2 has lodged the FIR against the entire family members of applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 1 husband of victim was residing at Mumbai separately from the other applicants. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants are named in the FIR. During investigation the statement of victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has disclosed the name of applicants. The victim in her statement has made allegation of demand of dowry against the applicants and allegation of attempt to commit rape has been made against applicant no. 2. The victim in her statement has supported the prosecution version. The statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which she has also supported the prosecution version. The I.O. after collecting evidence has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants. There is no ground to quash the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and entire proceedings of the aforementioned case.

A perusal of the record shows that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by the father of victim namely Rajendra Prasad Sahu against the applicants in which he has made allegation against the applicants of demand of dowry. The victim in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has also supported the prosecution version. She has also made allegation of attempt to commit rape against the applicant no. 2. the victim in her statements under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has disclosed the name of applicants and she has stated that applicants have harassed and tortured for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. She has also made allegation of attempt to commit rape against applicant no. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are ladies. The offence under section 376/511 IPC is not made out against them. In this regard the applicant nos. 3 to 6 and 8 may move discharge application at appropriate stage before the trial court taking all the plea. At this stage I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceedings, charge-sheet as well as cognizance order of the aforementioned case. The I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants after collecting evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as charge-sheet dated 21.8.2018 and cognizance order dated 21.8.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 12.3.2019

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh