Allowed

Km. Hema and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2019A482/16796/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application allows the quashing of the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against five applicants in a case involving dowry harassment allegations. The court found the allegations against these specific family members to be general and sweeping, leading to a decision to terminate the case against them while urging expedited trial procedures for the accused

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceeding of the case against applicants nos. 1 to 5.

Km. Hema and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16796 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Km. Hema And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anirudh Upadhyay,Ram Raj Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Raj Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 30.3.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 1996 of 2013 in Case Crime no. 85 of 2013, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

¶7

The prosecution case in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. is that the opposite party no. 2 was married to son of applicant no. 5 on 25.1.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals and sufficient amount, motorcycle and cash was given in the dowry, however, her inlaws used to ill-treat her for demand of dowry; the husband of opposite party no. 2 namely Harish is working as orderly in the court of S.D.M. Udhamsingh Nagar and he after committing marpeet with opposite party no. 2 in collusion with his family members made sit her at Bus-Station on 30.11.2011 when she was carrying pregnancy of two months. It is further alleged that on 13.5.2012 the husband of opposite party no. 2 Harish and two accused persons named in the complaint came to the house of the applicant (O.P. No.-2) at Baghpat and they started hurling abuses and assaulted her. Learned counsel has argued that so far the husband Harish is concerned, since there was specific allegation against him, the Court has refused for quashing the proceeding in Application u/s 482 No. 34594 of 2015 arriving at conclusion that it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out and District Court, Baghpat has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in question and dismissed the same vide order dated 8.8.2017. It is stated that the applicants are facing trial. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are unmarried daughter of Jeth of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 3 is her Jethani, applicant no. 4 is Jeth and applicant no. 5 is mother-inlaw; the allegations against all applicants are general and sweeping in nature and specifically it is stated that demand was

¶8

made by her husband thus keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex court in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and several other decisions rendered by the Court since the opposite party no. 2 has not spared any male female members of her husband, apparently complaint smacks of malafide, therefore, the proceedings may be quashed in respect of the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed and submitted that infact the applicant no. 5 is main accused, who had instigated son and other family members to torture and illtreat the opposite party no. 2 for demand of dowry and now the opposite party no. 2 is living with three children at her matrimonial home. He further pointed out that husband Harish is not cooperating with the trial.

¶10

Though the co-accused husband Harish is not an applicant before this Court yet I deem it fit to exercise inherent power that the court trying the offence shall ensure presence of accused - husband and expedite the trial against him and decide the same within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no purpose would be served in keeping the case pending against the applicants and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶12

The application is allowed. The entire proceeding of the aforesaid case in respect of the applicants no. 1 to 5 is quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Dhirendra/

Km. Hema and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Hema and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Prakash Srivastava and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aayush Khemka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mushahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others