Allahabad High Court
Amresh Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86069
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40950 of 2018
Applicant :- Amresh Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Km. Surabhi,Sudeep Kumar
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, at the very out set, submits that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the matter be heard. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally.
2. At the very out set, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is being pressed only in respect of applicant no. 2 (Pushpa Devi) and in respect of applicant no. 1 (Amresh Kumar) the prayer for quashing has already been refused by this Court by order dated 17.11.2018.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 395 of 2016 being Case Crime No. 510 of 2014 (State Versus Amresh Kumar and others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station George Town, District Allahabad as well as impugned charge sheet dated 30.01.2016 and non-bailable warrant dated 31.08.2018 passed by J.M./A.C.J.M. (J.D.) Room No. 6 Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 03.10.2014 against five nominated persons including the applicants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 is the husband and the applicant no. 2 (Pushpa Devi) is the mother-in-law.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that insofar as the allegation in respect of applicant no. 2 Pushpa Devi (who is the mother-in-law) is concerned the allegations are to the effect that demand of dowry has been made by the husband on the instigation of the applicant no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are also allegation with regard to assault against the husband, however, there is no allegation of assault against the applicant no. 2. The allegations are only founded that the applicant no. 2 used to instigate the applicant no. 1 and thereafter the applicant no. 1 has proceeded to commit the crime. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the allegations against the applicant no. 2 for instigation are wholly vague in nature. There is no direct allegation with regard to demand of dowry insofar as the applicant no. 2 is concerned. It is submitted that it has not been stated as to the manner in which the applicant no. 2 has committed the offence. It is submitted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement section 161 Cr.P.C. any such specific allegation has been made against the applicant no. 2 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Versus State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Geeta Mehrotra & another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2013 (80) ACC 185 the criminal proceedings against the applicant no. 2 are liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed the application and submitted that there are allegation for demand of dowry and harassment in the F.I.R.
7. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as to demonstrate from the record the specific allegation against the applicant no. 2 learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 fairly submits that the only role assigned in the F.I.R. and statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. against the applicant no. 2 is to the effect of instigating the applicant no. 1 to commit crime. He submits that the applicant no. 1 (husband) is the principal accused who has committed the crime. On a further query being made to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as to what are specific allegation and as to the manner in which the applicant no. 2 was instigating the applicant no. 1 learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not show from the record any specific allegation with regard to instigation.
8. It is to be seen in the present case that the applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law. The allegation in the F.I.R. are to the effect that the applicant no. 2 was instigating the applicant no. 1(husband) for committing the crime by way of demand of dowry and the assault. There is no allegation of assault for demand of dowry on the applicant no. 2. There are no instances in the specific details or material particulars as to how the applicant no. 2 was instigating the applicant no. 1. The application under section under 482 Cr.P.C. of the applicant no. 1 has already been rejected by this Court.
9. Since there are no specific allegation against applicant no. 2, the present criminal proceedings against applicant no. 2 are not tenable under law and such the proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2016 being Case Crime No. 510 of 2014 (State Versus Amresh Kumar and others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station George Town, District Allahabad as well as impugned charge sheet dated 30.01.2016 and non-bailable warrant dated 31.08.2018 passed by J.M./A.C.J.M. (J.D.) Room No. 6 Allahabad, are hereby quashed.
10. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in respect of applicant no. 2 only.
11. It is however provided that this Court has not considered the role of the applicant no. 1 on merits and the trial court shall proceed with the trial and conclude the same in a time bound manner without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the applicant no. 1. It is also hereby provided that any observation made in this order shall not in any manner affect the trial and the trial court shall independently decide the same in respect of the applicant no. 1.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
K.K. Maurya
