Allahabad High Court
Imran And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1294 of 2021
Applicant :- Imran And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mamta Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
None for the applicants though the link was sent to Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Time was sought on behalf of applicants on 05.02.2021 also.
Today also nobody is appearing.
Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA submits that no case for quashing of the FIR registering Case Crime No.626 of 2019 registered at Police Station Kithaur, District Meerut, under Sections 498-A, 376 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, is made out inasmuch as allegation on the applicants is that applicant no.1 was engaged with the complainant on 08.06.2019 but later on for the want and greed of dowry, refused to perform marriage with the complainant. Allegations are that applicant no.1- Imran in the name of contracting marriage physically exploited the complainant and exploited her so to constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.
Learned AGA submits that in the light of the law laid down in the case of Gold Quest International Private Limited vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 Volume 15 SCC 235, no compromise is permissible in a case of rape.
Even in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Pramod Suryabha Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., quashing of the FIR is not permissible inasmuch as commission of cognizable offence is made out.
Facts of this case are different. In case of Pramod Suryabha Pawar (supra), the prosecutrix was in wilful physical relationship with the accused for a long duration of period stretching over a period of seven years and under those facts and circumstances FIR came to be lodged after seven years.
In the present case, law laid down by Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 will be applicable where applicants are required to show abuse of the process for invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing of the FIR.
It is evident from the reading of the FIR that charges under Section 376 IPC are only against the applicant no.1- Imran whereas charges against other co-accused persons under Section 498-A and 3/4 of D.P. Act.
In case of Pramod Suryabha Pawar (supra) another distinguishing fact is that appellant had expressed his reservation about marrying the complainant on 31.01.2014 which led to arguments but yet complainant continued to engage in sexual intercourse until March, 2015 whereas in the present case fact is that in the name of marriage, applicant no.1- Imran exploited the complainant physically and later on for the greed of dowry, refused to marry the complainant.
Therefore, judgment in case of Pramod Suryabha Pawar (supra) being distinguishable on facts is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, application for quashing of the FIR fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021
Ravi/-
