HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8398 of 2013
Applicant :- Smt. Pooja And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.P. Tewari,S.S. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Swapnil Srivastava
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
List has been revised.
Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4298 of 2012, under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar as well as charge sheet dated 13.10.2012 and impugned order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are distant relatives of the main accused, Anil Kumar, who is husband of the opposite party no. 2. The accused-applicant no. 1, Smt. Pooja, is daughter of mausi of husband of opposite party no. 2, accused-applicant no. 2, Smt. Sarita, is cousin mausi of husband of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 3, Vijay Kumar, is brother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 4, Smt. Sushila, is jethani of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 5, Satish, is also brother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, while applicant no. 6 and 7, Smt. Urmila and Smt. Poonam, are married sisters-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. No specific allegation of any demand of dowry has been made against them in F.I.R.. Only general allegations have been levelled against them. It is further argued that compromise has taken place between main accused, Anil Kumar, as well as opposite party no. 2 in case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 13.7.2019 passed in the said case has been annexed at page 15 of the supplementary affidavit dated 25.7.2019. It is further argued that opposite party no. 2 and her husband have filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act being Case No. 185 of 2019 on 4.7.2019 before Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar, which is pending and the same is likely to be decreed very soon, therefore, it is prayed that Investigating Officer has not paid attention to the fact that there are general allegations levelled against applicants and there were no role of these accused in the present occurrence and yet charge sheet has been submitted, which is nothing but abuse of process of court which needs to be quashed. It is further argued that this is no injury case. As regards the main accused, Anil Kumar, proceedings are pending before the trial court.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing but could not controvert the aforesaid fact.
I have gone through the F.I.R.. It is mentioned therein by opposite party no. 2 that her marriage was performed with Anil Kumar on 26.2.2019 according to Hindu Rites and at the time of marriage Rs. 70,000/- in cash, motor-cycle and other household goods were provided but when opposite party no. 2 reached her matrimonial home, some days thereafter accused-applicants started passing adverse comments in respect of her looks and also with regard to less dowry having been brought at the time of marriage. When this fact was brought to the knowledge to her father, people at matrimonial home were tried to be convinced by him but that led to annoyance of her husband, her mother-in-law, nand, jethani and jeths, they all abused her father, thereafter her father took opposite party no. 2 to her parental home. Two months thereafter, father of opposite party no. 2 and mausa went to her matrimonial home and tried to convince people at matrimonial home and having been convinced, opposite party no. 2 was again sent to her matrimonial home and subsequently she became pregnant but again she began to be ill-treated. Her family members started beating her on small things and thereafter a girl child was born to her and soon thereafter demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a refrigerator was again started to be made from her parental home and this time the said demand was being made by her husband. Other members of the matrimonial home used to abuse her father and it was declared that in case an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a refrigerator were not brought, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. When she began to be ill-treated, her father again had taken her back to her parental house.
On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was made by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicants along with husband, Anil Kumar, who is facing trial separately. Perusal of charge sheet would suggest that accused-applicant nos. 6 and 7 reside in different house at different addresses, accused-applicant nos. 1 and 2 are also shown to be residing at different addresses, while accused-applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are shown to be residing in the same house along with main accused, Anil Kumar. Accused-applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5, are 2 jeths and jethani, respectively. It appears from perusal of the content of the F.I.R. that no specific allegations have been levelled against them of having demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a refrigerator. It may also be taken into consideration that said demand would benefit husband only or at the most parents of the husband of opposite party no. 2 but it is apparent that mother-in-law and father-in-law have already expired, hence there does not appear to be any concern of the accused-applicants.
He has further placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another, 2013 (80) ACC 185 and in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010-SCC (Cr.) 3-473, in which it is laid down that it is often seen that the in-laws of the victim are normally implicated falsely even if there is no specific allegation against them, therefore, they should not be summoned.
Paragraph 14 of the Geeta Mehrotra’s case is as follows:-
“14. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, the complainant-respondent No.2 has obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant’s ex-husband. Facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-law’s house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant’s husband as to how they could be implicated into the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra including his parents.”
In view of above position of law, I find that accused-applicants being distant relative do not appear to have any role in the present case and having found that there is no specific allegation against them, proceedings against them deserve to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed.
Application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019