Hon’ble Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—By moving the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed that charge-sheet dated 25.3.2013 submitted in case crime No. 475 of 2012, under Sections 504, 506(2), 307, 120-B, IPC, 67 Information Technology Act and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and the entire proceedings of case No. 528 of 2013 arisen out of the charge-sheet, mentioned above, be quashed.

2. Heard Shri L.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri D.K. Srivastava for O.P. No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

It has been argued on behalf of the applicants with all the vehemence that O.P. No. 2 is the wife of applicant No. 1 Nitin Goel. After their marriage the relationship between the two were hostile inasmuch as O.P. No. 2 lodged a case under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC at Jaipur and also lodged a case under the Domestic Violence Act at Allahabad. On behalf of the applicant as well, proceedings for divorce were initiated. Since the relationship between the parties were hostile, false implication is quite evident. Admittedly, the complainant, O.P. No. 2 did not sustain any injury and as such there is no medical support of the prosecution version. It has also been argued that the applicants are the resident of Bulandshahar and they would have never committed offence at Allahabad where O.P. No. 2 used to reside and this place was altogether alien to them. Since the case has been launched maliciously with false allegations, the application deserves to be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA opposed the application with the arguments that on the basis of the facts and evidence available a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, hence, no case for intervention of this Court is made out.

4. The brief facts, as it has been brought forth in the application of O.P. No. 2 against the applicant, are that on 19.11.2012 date was fixed in the case under Domestic Violence Act at Allahabad. On this date at about 4.00 p.m. applicant No. 1 alongwith two unknown persons approached to the house of the complainant, O.P. No. 2 and asked her to withdraw the cases against him otherwise he will make her life miserable and shall also flash the MMS prepared by him. While the complainant, O.P. No. 2 objected and raised protest that the applicant No. 1 Nitin Goel with intent to kill fired with a Tamancha, which fortunately did not hit anyone. The witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence. While taking retreat, the applicant No. 1 extended threat to the complainant, his wife that she will not be spared in future and her MMS, which he has prepared, shall be made public. The occurrence in question was committed in criminal conspiracy with applicant No. 2, father-in-law of the complainant, O.P. No. 2.

5. This application moved by O.P. No. 2 found favour from the Court and an investigation was ordered for registration of the criminal case, which ultimately culminated in terms of submission of charge-sheet against the present applicants on 25.3.2013 for the offences mentioned above. On this charge-sheet cognizance was taken by the Magistrate vide his order dated 3.4.2013.

6. The Court proposes to lay down the scope of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, has held as follows :

“The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.”

7. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 Law Suit (SC) 701, Hon’ble Apex Court