HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13233 of 2018 Applicant :- Imran Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh,Dhananjay Pratap Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dhananjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.5.2017 in Criminal Case No. 9583 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 745 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh.
As per F.I.R., which has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, she was married the accused-applicant no. 1 Imran on 21.12.2015 and in the said marriage a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- were spent and it was disclosed that applicant no. 1 was Engineer and was working in Noida in a Company. Accused-applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry and when the same could not be fulfilled, treatment towards the opposite party no. 2 deteriorated and insisted that opposite party no. 2 would not allowed to stay at home unless the said demand was fulfilled. The entire 'stree dhan' had also been usurped by the applicants.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is no evidence against the accused-applicants except that of the informant herself. Only general allegations have been levelled against the applicants of having demanded dowry therefore their cases are covered by the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra and another, 2013 (80) ACC 185, 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, hence charge sheet needs to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing of the charge sheet orally though he has not filed any counter affidavit and has stated that demand of dowry was being made by the applicants also because of which the opposite party no. 2 could not stay at the house of her husband Imran. There is actual role of the applicants in driving away the opposite party no. 2 out of her husband's house.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer of quashing the charge sheet and it is stated by him that sufficient evidence has come on record.
Looking to the fact that there is evidence of the opposite party no. 2, who is informant of this case, which needs to be assessed by the trial court and not by this Court, hence it cannot be denied that on the basis of her statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no prima facie case is made out of demanding additional dowry therefore this is not found to be a fit case for quashing the charge sheet. Accordingly, prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.
However, the applicants may approach the trial court to seek discharge at appropriate stage, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such an application is moved, the same shall be disposed without being influenced by the observations of this Court.
The applicants shall appear before the court below within 30 days from today and may move an application for bail. If such an application is moved within the said time limit, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused applicants in the aforesaid case. But if the accused do not appear before the court below, the court below shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance.
With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 A.P. Pandey