HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 17468 of 2013
Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashok Kumar Gupta
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 530 of 2012 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
It transpires from record that marriage of applicant No. 1 Raj Kumar was solemnized with opposite party No. 2 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs on 8.5.2009. Subsequently, relationship between applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 became strained on account of marital discord. Faced with despair and destitution, opposite party No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by filing Case No. 390 o 2010 (Smt. Rekha Vs. Raj Kumar). Subsequently, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C., which was allowed by concerned Magistrate. As a consequence of aforesaid, an F.I.R. dated 20.2.2012 came to be registered and was registered as Case Crime No. 109 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. In the aforesaid F.I.R. 4 persons namely Raj Kumar, Daryab Singh, Smt. Munni Devi and Ram Pratap were nominated as named accused.
Police upon completion of statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. submitted a charge sheet dated 28.3.2012 against three of the named accused. Upon submission of aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, vide cognizance taking order dated 27.8.2012. As a consequence of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 503 of 2012 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others) came to be registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Thus feeling aggrieved by proceedings of above mentioned State Case, applicants have now approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that after opposite party No. 2 left her matrimonial home, applicant No. 1 gave a notice dated 24.6.2009 to opposite party No. 2. As opposite party no. 2 did not return to her matrimonial home even after service of notice dated 24.6.2009, Complaint Case No. 380 of 2011 (Raj Kumar Vs. Tika Ram and others) was filed, in which opposite party No. 2 and others were summoned by summoning order dated 4.10.2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 IP.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for applicants submits that present criminal proceedings have been initiated by opposite party No. 2 as a counterblast to the criminal proceedings initiated by him. As such, present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Admittedly, the present case, police upon completion of statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. has submitted a charge sheet. The grounds for challenging charge sheet are very limited namely the Court has no jurisdiction or otherwise proceedings are not maintainable. Arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants relate to disputed defence of the applicants, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, present application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
Interim order dated 22.5.2013 stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020