Manju Verma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11841 of 2022 Applicant :- Manju Verma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ronak Chaturvedi Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 20.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. IX of 2020 (State Vs. Samarth and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

¶3As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no.2 on 04.12.2017. Applicant no.1 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.3 is the sister-in-law and applicant no.4 is the mother-in-law (Mausi Saas) of opposite party no. 2, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and subjected her to cruelty and turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶5Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie, offence is clearly made out against applicant no. 2.

¶6Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, looking to the specific allegations made against applicant no.2, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.

¶8However, in case applicant no. 2 appears before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, her bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 after hearing the parties.

¶9With the aforesaid observation, the instant application on behalf of applicant no.2 stands disposed of.

¶10So far as the applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that no specific allegation has been made against them rather general and vague allegations, just to drag them in criminal court has been alleged. They, if fact, have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs between husband and wife and have been falsely roped in only on account of being the family members of her husband.

¶11From the material collected during the course of investigation, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations have been made against applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 and as such, they cannot be forced to undergo trial as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

¶12In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parak Vs. State of M.P. and Others,

(2015) 11 SCC 260 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the aforesaid proceedings in respect of applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 are quashed.

¶13This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 only. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Subham High Court of Judicature at Allahabad