Abhilasha and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and have taken through the record. By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet of case crime No. 188 of 2013 under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Dehat.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted by the opposite party No. 2 on the false allegations made in the first information report. There was no demand of dowry by the applicants. The applicant No. 3 is the husband. The applicants No. 1 & 2 are Nand & Nandoi. The opposite party No. 2 has also filed the application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet in very casual and pedantic way.

Per contra learned AGA contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency collected credible and clinching material on the basis of which charge sheet was submitted. The opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant No. 3. She has been facing untold hardship and privation on account of maltreatment and cruelty extended by the applicants. The opposite party No. 2 has no source of survival hence she has rightly chosen the forum by filing the application for interim maintenance.

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicants. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl.) 426, and State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, . where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged u/s 482 Cr. P.C.

Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings or the charge sheet of the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred u/s 482 Cr. P.C.. The application is accordingly dismissed.

However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., which was approved by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

No coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants within the stipulated period of 30 days. In case the applicants do not appear before the court below within stipulated time the court below shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the applicants in accordance with law.