Allahabad High Court
Anoop Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168628
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22308 of 2021
Applicant :- Anoop Jaiswal And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Trivikram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Gupta
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Modification Application No. nill of 2021
1. This application has been filed to modify the order dated 30.8.2023 to the extent that the interim order may be extended as well and in paragraph no.3 in place of 'mutation' the word 'mediation' may be transcribed.
2. The application is allowed to the extent that in third paragraph of the order dated 30.8.2023 'mutation' shall be read and understood as 'mediation'.
Order on Application u/s 482
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 1.9.2021 & 25.9.2019, charge sheet dated 17.9.2021 arising out of the Case Crime No. 0091 of 2019, (State Vs. Anoop & Ors.) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur pending before Judicial Magistrate, (Junior Division) Ghazipur.
3. An FIR, being Case Crime No. 0091 of 2021 dated 20.9.2021, has been lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 leveling allegation of cruelty and torture for demand of dowry against the applicants with the averments that he has solemnized the marriage of his daughter with Anoop Jaiswal (applicant no.1) on 1.7.2014 according to Hindu Rituals and spent sufficient money. However, at later stage, they have started harassing to his daughter for demand of dowry.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that false and malicious prosecution has been made against the entire family members of the husband just to exert pressure upon the present applicants so that they may come to the compromise on the terms and conditions of the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that allegation has been made collectively against all the family members with respect to the cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. False story has been portrayed in the FIR just to harass the entire family. It is also submitted that the FIR lodged against as many as five persons, however, charge-sheet has been submitted only arraigning the present applicants (husband and mother-in-law), remaining accused were exonerate in the charge-sheet.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicants in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the innocence of the present applicants cannot inferred at this stage which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appreciating the evidence to be adduced by the parties concerned. It is next contended that no legal ground is made out warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding.
6. Having considered the rivals submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifested that omnibus allegations have been made by the respondent no.2 against all family members of the husband. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet only against the husband and mother-in-law. Remaining accused, as mentioned in the FIR, have not been arraigned in the charge-sheet. Omnibus allegations of cruelty and torture for demand of dowry have been made, however, no specific instance has been mentioned attributing the particular accused to make out a case of cruelty and torture for demand of dowry.
7. Opposite party no. 2 has taken the name of applicant no.2 (mother-in-law) along with other co-accused and common allegation has been made against all the accused including her. Considering the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 743 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117, I am of the view that the matter relates to the applicant no.2 requires consideration..
8. Opposite party no.1- State is being representing through learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 is also present.
9. List on 3rd October, 2023.
10. In the meantime, both the parties shall exchange their respective affidavit.
11. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0091 of 2022, so far as it relates to the applicant No. 2, shall remain stayed.
12. So far as the case of applicant No. 1 (Anoop Jaiswal) is concerned, I am of the view that no case is made out being husband his case distinguishable from the case of applicant no.2, therefore, the instant application, so far as it relates to the applicant No. 1, is hereby dismissed.
13. Before parting, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in all sections, as mentioned in the FIR, maximum punishment is seven years or less than 7 years, therefore, the bail application if filed by the applicant No. 1 may be considered in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773. In the cited case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain guidelines for deciding the bail applications by categorising the offences.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that in case, the applicant No. 1 appears/surrenders before the concerned court below and move bail application within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously as early as possible.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
Akbar
