JUDGMENT :

RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Nayan Singh and Sri Ritukar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in all the above captioned revisions and as such, all the matters has ripe for final submissions to be adjudicated on merits.

3. Coincidentally, all the aforesaid three revisionists, are assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 03.03.2022 through their respective revisions mentioned above whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Hapur, by three different orders of the same date i.e. 03.03.2022, have rejected all the discharge applications of the revisionists under section 227 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 19 of 2020 (State vs. Manju Bansal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 567 of 2018, under sections 498A, 504, 506, 307 and 120B IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur.

Since, order dated 03.03.2022 has been passed on three different applications in the same Sessions Trial, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, all the aforesaid three revisions are clubbed together and decided by a common judgement by this Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE & SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVISIONISTS:

4. As per prevailing practice nowadays in the society mostly in the cases of matrimonial discord, misunderstanding and incompatibility between the married couples, results into ever abhorring FIR. Here too, it seems to be a repetition of the same practice. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by none other than the wife Ms. Shivangi Bansal herself against her husband as well as her in-laws. From the perusal of the FIR, it is borne out that for the incident of 04.10.2018, the present FIR came into existence on 22.10.2018 lodged at Police Station-Pilkhua, District-Hapur (native place of Ms. Shivani Bansal) against five named accused including husband and his relatives. In addition to above named accused persons, two more namely Chirag Bansal brother-in-law (devar) and Smt. Shipra Jain, married sister-in-law (nanad) were also roped in these offences. From the text of the FIR, following salient factual features of the case are apparent.

5. The written complaint signed by the informant Ms. Shivangi Bansal was sent to the office of the Prime Minister, Government of India, Chief Minister, State of U.P. Police Commissioner, New Delhi, D.G.P. Lucknow, Superintendent of Police, Hapur and Circle Officer, Police Station-Pilkhua, District-Hapur with the allegations that opposite party no. 2 Ms. Shivangi Bansal was married with Sahib Bansal on 05.12.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It seems that there was a deep rooted misunderstanding, and thorough incompatibility and discord between husband and wife, in fact, both of them were fierce-foe of each other.

6. It is alleged that in the marriage, her parents have spent about Rs. 2 crores in the shape of cash, jwellery, clothing, utensils, furniture and other gifts worth Rs. 50 lacs. But, all the above named five persons were not happy by the aforesaid dowry and were demanding Rs. 20 lacs more as an additional dowry which later on swelled to the figure of Rs. 50 lacs. It is alleged that (a) the informant's father-in-law Mukesh Bansal wanted to have sexual favours from opposite party no. 2 and not only this, her devar Chirag Bansal also have tried to ravish her physically. (b) The husbandSahib Bansal used to lock her in the bathroom after taking away her mobile phone. (c) When the informant got pregnant, then they asked some astronomer to predict the sex of ‘still born’ baby. Then, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law pressurized her to get aborted. On making refusal, all the family members became physical with her. (d) During the stage of pregnancy, her husband tried to establish sexual relationship perforce. Not on