JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present application may be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavits.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet no. 290 of 2019 dated 8.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 26.11.2019 in Case No. 3670 of 2019 (State vs. Beena Gupta and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 327 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

3. Before addressing on the legal aspects of the case, which have been raised, before this Court, it would be worthwhile to record the following relevant facts for deciding the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged on 21.08.2019 at 23.23 p.m. by the first informant namely, Vinod Kumar Gupta, father of the deceased against the seven named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that, on 06.05.2013, the marriage of daughter of informant, namely, Sangeeta Gupta was solemnized with Virendra Kumar Gupta as per Hindu Rituals and Rites and sufficient money was given as per the capacity to in-laws by the parents of the deceased at the time of the marriage of his daughter. But the in-laws were not satisfied with the aforesaid dowry and soon after the marriage, they started torturing/harassing the daughter of the informant for non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry and finally she expired on 20.08.2018. Hence the first information report was lodged against the accused persons including the applicant namely, Beena Gupta (mother-in-law), Virendra Kumar Gupta (husband), Arvind Gupta (brother-in-law) (Jeth), Ravindra Gupta (brother-in-law (Jeth), Narendra Kumar Gupta @ Tinku Gupta (brother-in-law) (Devar), Vandana Gupta (sister-in-law) (Jethani) and Reeta Gupta (sister-in-law) (Jethani) of opposite party no.2 respectively. After lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer proceeded by preparing inquest report on 20.08.2019 and post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted 21.08.2019.

After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the other documentary as well as oral evidence in view of the provisions of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 8.11.2019 against seven accused persons, namely, Beena Gupta, (the applicant herein), Virendra Kumar Gupta, Arvind Gupta, Ravindra Gupta, Tinku Gupta, Vandana Gupta and Reeta Gupta under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. as also under Sections 3,4 D.P. Act. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 08.11.2019, the cognizance was taken by the Court concerned and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by taking cognizance vide Order dated 26.11.2019 and by the same order, all the charge-sheeted accused persons have been summoned.

The applicant, who is also a charge-sheeted accused, has already been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54749 of 2019 (Smt. Beena Gupta vs. State of U.P.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she is aged about 71 years old and is living separately. Hence she has wrongly been charge sheeted without there being any credible evidence against her. He further submits that the complainant/informant has falsely roped the entire family members of the applicant and after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and has exonerated the other accused persons, which makes the prosecution case doubtful.

Lea