Allahabad High Court
Mangaru Gupta And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2014
Bench: Akhtar Husain Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 22
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41790 of 2014
Applicant :- Mangaru Gupta And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanednra Prakash Srivast,Rishu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
Present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants Mangaru Gupta, Lali Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and Saroj Gupta to quash the entire proceeding initiated on charge sheet no.278 of 2012 dated 25.9.2012 in Case Crime No.671 of 2012, under sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have neither committed any crime nor they have any criminal history to their credit. They have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration material available on record.
Learned A.G.A. contended that the applicants are named in F.I.R. and F.I.R. version has been supported by witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the application.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties.
The applicants are named accused in F.I.R. specific allegation has been made against applicants in F.I.R.
Relevant portion of F.I.R. is reproduced below:
& **Qjojh esa gksyh ls igys vius ?kj jsojhMhg vk;s vkSj muds ?kj vkus ij lkl llqj Hklqj] vkSj tsBku ngst esa de lkeku ykus dh ckr dgdj mIrhfM+r djus yxs vkSj llqj tu dgus yxs fd eksVj lkbfdy 1 yk[k :i;k vc rd ugh feyk vkSj vgenkckn caxyk rqEgkjs ?kj okys ugh fnyok;s 7 ekpZ 2012 dks fnu esa 1 cts izkfFkZuh dk HkkbZ gksyh dk diM+k o lkeku ysdj eq>s nsus igqapk rks eSaus vius lkFk llqjky ds yksxksa }kjk ngst ds fy;s fn;k tk jgs mRihM+u ds ckjs esa crk;k rks esjs HkkbZ us esjs ifr lkl] llqj] Hklqj tsBkuh ls blds ckor iwNk vkSj ykpkjxh ds ckjs esa crk;k fd lHkh feydj izkfFkZuh dks mlds cPps ds lkFk HkkbZ dks /kDdk ekjdj ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;sA**
The above contention of F.I.R. has been supported by witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore in view of allegation made in F.I.R. as well as in statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie offences under sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012) 10 S.C.C. 741. In para 24 of the said pronouncement Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them."
In view of discussion made above it is apparent from the F.I.R. as well as statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that specific allegation of harassment and demand of dowry has been made against applicants also. Therefore, pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is not applicable on the facts and evidence of present case.
After investigation police has submitted charge sheet against applicants alongwith co-accused Ramesh Gupta for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereupon learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. The Magistrate is competent under section 239 Cr.P.C. to consider plea of discharge if no offence is made out against applicants on the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer.
In view of above, I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014
RU
