( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants in the aforesaid criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and the said two connected criminal revisions, and the learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

( 2 ) THE criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. moved on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Premwati is being disposed of along with Crl. Revision No. 866 of 1988, moved on behalf of Chunni Lal, pushpa Devi (again) and Ramesh and Crl. Revision No. 867 of 1988 moved on behalf of Premwati (again) and Satish, Crl. Revision No. 866 of 1988 and connected Crl. Revision No. 867 of 1988 was filed on 7-7-1988 when further proceedings in ST No. 871 of 1987 pending in the Court of IV, Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh, were directed to remain stayed until 18-8-1988. The impleadment application for impleading complainant was allowed on 18-8-2004. However, in spite of notice, opposite party no. 2 has not put in appearance in this case. It appears that the criminal application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the applicants, Pushpa Devi and premwati, even though they were the revisionists in two earlier criminal revisions, in order to obviate any controversy about maintainability of the revisions against the orders framing the charge.

( 3 ) THE basic prayer in the application and the criminal revisions was for quashing the charges against the applicants under sections 302 read with 120-B and 498-A, ipc. Learned counsel for the applicants states that so far as Satish, husband of the deceased Smt. Indu Bala, who is one of the applicants in Criminal Revision No. 867 of 1988, is concerned, he is not pressing the revision on his behalf. Also, so far as the other accused are concerned, he is not objecting to framing of the charges under Section 498-A, IPC, but only prays that no charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302, IPC should be framed.

( 4 ) THE prosecution case mentioned in the FIR was that Satish was married to indubala on 26-4-1987. Indubalas natal family had given more than Rs. 40,000/- by way of dowry, but Satish Chandra, his mother Premwati, his brother-in-law (bahnoi) Chunni Lal were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a motorcycle, a steel almirah and Rs. 10,000/-cash, in addition. They had beaten up the niece of the informant, Nand Prakash, indubala, on several occasions. On 25-6-1987 Satish Chandra, his mother Smt. Premwati and brother-in-law Chunni Lal gave a beating to Indubala and turned her out of their home and told her to come back only with Rs. 10. 000/ -. On intervention of certain family members, and on their assurances that they would give the dowry items demanded, Satish, his brother-in-law chunni Lal, sister Pushpa, the mother premwati, took Indubala back. But, again they brought her back to her maika (wifes parents home) within an hour. On 21-8-1987, Chunni Lal, Pushpa and one Ramesh chandra (bahnoi of Chunni Lal), came to the house of the informant and took back indubala after assuring them that they would not beat her again and would not make any further dowry demands. On 25-8-1987, chunni Lal and Pushpa are said to have come to the informant to inform him that satish and Indubala had become traceless. When the informant reached Satish chandras house along with Jai Prakash and pramod and made an enquiry from premwati, she is said to have disclosed that indubala had been taken away by Satish chandra and Ramesh Chandra and they had locked their room. The key was said to be lying in the courtyard. When the room was unlocked, they found that Indubalas clothes were lying there. As Premwati asked them to wait till the evening, they waited. At about 11 or 12 noon, Satish Chandra returned home on 26-8-2004, but he refused to give any information about whereabouts of indubala. From this, the informant concluded that Satish Chandra, in conspiracy with Chunni Lal, his wife Pushpa and ramesh and his mother had removed indubala or killed her and disposed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document