Girraj And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5558 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16767 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Girraj And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sriram Dhar Dubey,Gaurav Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

By way of moving this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed to quash the charge sheet dated 24.6.2007, cognizance order dated 2.7.2007 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 330 of 2007 (State Vs. Manohar Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2007, under section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station- Sikandrabad, District - Bulandshahar.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 3 against her father-in-law and present three applicants, who happen to be the brother-in-law of opposite party no. 3. The allegations are general in nature. Opposite party no. 3 has not moved any application against her husband. In fact, a Will was made by the deceased, the father-in-law of opposite party no. 3, wherein nothing was given to the husband of opposite party no. 3. Due to this reason, this false case has been filed by opposite party no. 3. The applicants also reside far from the residence of opposite party no. 3 and are not involved in the matter, therefore, prayer to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings has been made accordingly.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicants and argued that connizance has been taken on the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer now the applicants have to appear before the court below and narrate their plight.

From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the marriage of opposite party no. 3 was soliminzied in the year 1998 and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2007 on the general allegations that all the applicants i.e. brother-in-laws of the opposite party no. 3 and her father-in-law (now deceased) were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and when the demand was not fulfilled they were mentally and physically harassing opposite party no. 3.

According to opposite party no. 3, her husband lives in Kashipur in Uttarakhand in connection with his job and she alongwith her children lives with her in-laws in village Hasanpur. Specifically the date 2.6.2007 has been mentioned that on the date at 12:00 O'clock in the night the applicants alongwith their father thrashed her with fist and kicks and hearing her hue and cry, the villagers gathered on the spot and saved opposite party no. 3 from the applicants. It is also mentioned in the FIR that she was given threat of life also by the accused persons.

All the facts mentioned in the FIR are factual in nature and as per judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, this Court at this stage of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct for an inquiry regarding factual dispute between the parties. Hence, the application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.6.2022

S.K.S.