Baijnath Pratap Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P.And Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1989 of 2022 Applicant :- Baijnath Pratap Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 charge sheet dated 13.03.2021 along with cognizance dated 3.8.2021 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) J.D./ FTC-I), Mahrajganj as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3769 of 2021 (State Vs. Baijnath Pratap Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2021, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 33/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mahrajganj, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) J.D./ FTC-I), Mahrajganj.

¶3The instant application filed on behalf of applicant no.1 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

07.02.2022 and the same survives only for applicant nos. 2 to

6.

¶4As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on

11.07.2018, 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.

¶5Learned 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.

¶6So far as the applicant nos.2 to 6 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. As a matter of fact, they 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.

¶7Per 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 applicants.

¶8From the material collected during the course of investigation also, it is evident that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against applicant no.2 and 3, parents-in-law, applicant no. 4, brother-in-law and applicant nos.5 and 6, who are sisters-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and as such, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through tribulations of a trial, that is, general, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be manifest in a situation, where the relatives of the victim's husband are forced to undergo trial in view of law laid down by 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.

¶9In 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, Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Abhishek Vs. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2023, the aforesaid proceedings in respect of the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are quashed.

¶10This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings stands quashed on behalf of remaining applicant nos. 2 to 6. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 RPD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad