Manoj And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State today in Court, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 823 of 2021 (State Vs. Manoj and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mathura as well as charge-sheet dated 14.6.2021 and cognizance order dated 3.9.2021.

The O.P. No. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicants and two others with the allegations of demand of dowry, assault, criminal intimidation and torture etc. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted.

The contentions of learned counsel for the applicants are that FIR has been lodged on 3.4.2021 after one year of the alleged incident. It is also contended that I.O. has submitted charge-sheet only on the basis of statement of complainant/victim. No independent witness has been examined. It is also contended that there is no injury report. No medical examination of the victim has been conducted. The I.O. has exonerated two accused Ajeet and Renu disbelieving the statement of complainant in their respect. There are general allegations against the applicants. No specific allegation has been made in the FIR. The applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law and she has no concern with the aforesaid incident and present case is malicious prosecution just to harass the applicants and to create pressure upon the applicants. The allegations are false and fabricated.

Learned A.G.A. contended that although I.O has only named the victim as a witness in the charge-sheet but in the case diary the statements of other witnesses have also been recorded. He further contended that on the basis of credible evidence charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with it has taken on cognizance on it. So there is no ground to quash the charge-sheet.

The complainant/victim has corroborated the version of the FIR. On the basis of material collected during investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with it has taken cognizance on it. It is true that in the charge-sheet only public witness named in it is complainant/the victim but according to learned A.G.A. statement of other witnesses are there in the case diary. The trial court has ample power to summon any person as a witness during course of trial under section 311 Cr.P.C. All other arguments as assailed by the learned counsel for the applicants are matter of trial which can not be adjudicated in a proceeding U/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is settled principle of law that at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. There is nothing on record to show that charge-sheet, cognizance order or proceeding is an abuse of process of law or court.

The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicants prayed that a direction be issued to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the bail application in view of guidelines propounded in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors, reported in 202 (4) Crimes 139 (SC) case.

Considering the submission it is directed that if the applicants move any bail application before the court concerned, it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with settled principle of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court.