The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to quash proceedings if the ends of justice so require, especially when there is no chance of conviction based on the evidence.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. appearing for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet against the applicant in criminal case No. 364-A of 2000, State v. Surender Yadav under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC pending in the Court of A. C. J. M. Vth, Gorakhpur.

3. The allegations in the F. I. R. were that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000 for dowry by the husband of the deceased Smt. Ramdani, namely another Surendra Yadav (not the applicant) son of Ram Harakh Yadav and Saudha Devi, mother-in-law, the wife of Ram Harakh Yadav who were residents of village Gajai Kol, P. S. Chhangaha, Gorakhpur.

4. The applicant Surender Yadav, S/o Indrasen Yadav is shown as a resident of another village, Rajdhani. The only allegations against the applicant, which appear at the foot of the F. I. R. were that there was some suspicion of the applicant also being involved in this incident, because he used to tell Surendra Yadav to enter into a second marriage. The words used in the FIR against the applicant are as follows:

"rajdhani KE SURENDRA YADAV PUTRA INDRASAN YADAV KE GHATANA MEIN SHAMIL HONE KI ASHANKA HAI, KYONKI SURENDRA KO DOOSARI SHADI KARNE KO UKSA RAHA THA. "

5. The charge sheet in this case was initially submitted only against Surendra Yadav, husband of the deceased Smt. Ramdani and his mother Smt. Saudha Devi. The husband and the mother-in-law were tried separately and those two accused persons were acquitted by the judgment of the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 6-4-1999 as all the witnesses, which included Basant, PW 3, the informant and father of the deceased, PW 5, Smt. Moti @ Motia, the mother of the deceased had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. These witnesses have stated that Ramdani was married to Surendra 10 years back. No demand for dowry was made, nor was the deceased harassed for dowry. As no appeal or revision has been filed against that judgment of acquittal, by the State or the informant that judgment has become final.

6. As no counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties in the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , these averments must be taken as admitted. Subsequently, it appears that a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also filed a

supplementary affidavit annexing all the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. These statements of Ibrahim and Shanti Devi, which were in the nature of hearsay evidence, only make an allegation against the applicant, that he used to visit Surendra Yadavs house frequently and he was interested in getting his friend married off a second time.

7. It may be mentioned that for both proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC an offence can only be committed by the husband or any relative of the husband. Now clearly the applicant, who was resident of village Rajdhani, is not a relative of the husband and neither in the F. I. R. nor even in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement has he been described as a relative of the husband, but only as a friend of the husband Surendra.

8. Furthermore, for an offence of dowry, death under Section 304-B IPC to apply, it has to be shown "that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. " The allegation against the applicant had nothing to do with any demand for dowry, but the only allegation against the applicant was that he was trying to encourage Surendra Yadav, the husband to contract a second marriage.

9. But the most significant point in this case is that as the main accused, namely the husband and the mother-in-law have been acquitted in the circumstances described above. No purpose whatsoever would now be served in allowing the applicant to suffer the harassment of a lame prosecution when