Rashid Ali and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 1.3.2012 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.31 of 2012, under sections 504, 506 and 406 IPC, P.S. Bakenganj, District Kanpur Nagar and for quashing of entire proceedings in aforesaid criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the present case admittedly complainant, opposite party no.2, Najmus Sahar, wife of applicant no.1, left the matrimonial house in the year 2001. The proceeding was initiated u/s 498A IPC in which entire family members were implicated, however, subsequently, they were acquitted. Now after about 11 years complaint was moved u/s 504, 506 and 406 IPC with false and concocted story in which the applicants were implicated though no such incident took place and the proceeding is also barred u/s 368(2) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that applicants are living at Unnao, where earlier complaint was filed u/s 498 IPC. Now in the present case, complaint has been filed in Kanpur Nagar hence on this ground the proceeding, which was filed with mala fide intention, is liable to be quashed.

Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties and nature of allegation. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit specifically it has been mentioned that on 11.1.2012 when stree dhan was damanded applicant refused to give the same and it was informed that they have taken those jewellery and refused to return the same. They also threaten for dire consequences. Hence the cause of action arose on 11.1.2012 and as such the proceeding is not barred u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. As far as the jurisdiction at Kanpur Nagar is concerned, whatever gift was given at the time of marriage to the complainant that was given at Kanpur Nagar where her parents were living and marriage took place hence this contention is also misconceived that court at Kanpur Nagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. As far as the implication of entire family is concerned, the matter requires to be considered whether such incident took place or not and whether offence is made out against other family members u/s 406 IPC also. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in view of the facts and circumstances, if an application is moved on behalf of applicant within 30 days from today before the court below and the draft for a sum of Rs.8,000/- is deposited in favour of Mediation Centre, within three weeks from today before the court below, the matter may be referred to the mediation centre situated at district court Kanpur Nagar. If the aforesaid amount is deposited out of that Rs.6,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, Najmus Sahar, opposite party no.2 on her first appearance before the mediation centre.

Till report of the mediation centre is received, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. With these observations, application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.