Point of Law: Court would have not entertain application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by such persons, who have disobeyed the order of the court for more than 10 years, but considering the fact that the applicant is lady, this Court proposed the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant may appear before the court below and seek recall of the warrant so issued under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C within 30 days and the Court also suggested that for a period of 30 days she will be granted interim protection. However, learned counsel for the applicant insisted the Court that the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed as his case is of high merit and the applicant has not consciously disobeyed the order of the court below.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2009, order taking cognizance dated 2nd April, 2010 and order dated 22nd January, 2013 as well as entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1500 of 2010 (State Vs. Gaurav Singh & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Allahabad.

3. The facts, which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the present application are as follows:

A first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2, Indu Singh on 17th February, 2009 through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., against three named accused persons Gaurav Singh, Kamla Singh and Preeti @ Ranu Singh (applicant herein), who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 respectively, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 97 of 2009,, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad). In the said first information report, it has been alleged by opposite party no.2 that the marriage of opposite party no.2 has been solemnized with Gaurav Singh on 6th May, 2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the wedding, as per his full capacity, the father of opposite party no.2 gave Rs. 3 lac, jewellery for a sum of Rs. 1 lac and utensils for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-to her in-laws as demand of dowry but her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (all the accused persons) were not satisfied. After marriage, they used to harass opposite party no.2 for Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle as additional demand of dowry. On 8th July, 2007, opposite party no.2 came to her parental house and told her father and mother about the aforesaid demand of dowry. In October, 2007, husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 came to her parental house and demanded the aforesaid additional demand of dowry by threatening that if the aforesaid additional demand of dowry was not fulfilled by the father of opposite party no.2, they would not take opposite party no.2 to their house. On the assurance given by father of opposite party no.2 to her husband and mother-in-law that he would fulfill the said demand of dowry at the earliest, as at that time he had no money, her husband and mother-in-law took her to their house. For few days, the behaviour of the accused persons was normal with opposite party no.2 but thereafter all the accused persons started abusing and beating her and demanded the aforesaid dowry repeatedly. When opposite party no.2 told her father about the said behaviour of all the accused persons with her, her father and brother came to her matrimonial house at Katni. On coming of father and brother of opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house, all the accused persons threatened them that if they did not fulfill their additional demand of dowry, they would kill her. Then somehow, with the help of Katni Police, father and brother of opposite party no.2 brought her to her parental house. The husband and mother-in-law came to the parental house of opposite party no.2 again and demanded Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle but her father requested them to take her daughter to their house and he would fulfill their demand after arranging the money but they did not take his daughter i.e. opposite party no.2 along with them. Ultimately, opposite party no.2 had no other option but to make an application before the Police Station to lodge the first information report against them but the Police did not lodge the first information report. Thereafter opposite party no.2 moved an application under Sect