IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for evidence to be included in the case diary and highlighted the limitations of the Family Court's findings in the criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri D.K. Agrawal and Ms Anupriya Agarwal Advocates, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Sri Prabhat Pandey and Sri Mahesh Kumar Advocates, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 14 of 2016 dated 24.12.2016 submitted in furtherance of Case Crime No. 10 of 2016, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Amethi under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. They have also sought quashing of the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in Case No. 1818 of 2017, taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and summoning the applicants to face trial of the aforesaid offences.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 22.07.2016 stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the applicant No. 1 on 15.02.2015. Wedding ceremony was solemnized at Etawah. The informant had spent Rs. 15,00,000/- in the wedding and related ceremonies and he had given Rs. 6,00,000/- in cash, besides several other valuable articles. At the time of settlement of the marriage, the applicants had told that the applicant No. 1 had done MBA from Birmingham University in United Kingdom in first division and that he was working as a Manager in a real estate concern at Gurugram. After the marriage, the accused persons started harassing the informant's daughter for demanding a car. Later on, it came to light that the applicant no. 1 did not possess a degree, as had been claimed by the applicants and he merely holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in which he had secured second division and perhaps that diploma is not recognized in India. The FIR alleges that the accused persons had beaten up the informant's daughter on 21.12.2015, took away her stridhan and dropped her near the house of the informant in HAL campus at Korba, Munshi Gunj, District Amethi. The informant tried to resolve the disputes, but he was always insulted.

4. During investigation, the informant and his daughter gave statements supporting the FIR allegations. Accordingly, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons. The Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the applicants to face trial by means of impugned order dated 27.03.2017.

5. The applicants have sought quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning order and the proceedings on the ground that the allegations of huge expenditure in wedding ceremonies by the informant or the demand of dowry by the applicants are absolutely false. The informant had paid merely 1,50,000/- for making arrangements of reception and entire expenditure of marriage ceremony and the reception was incurred by applicant Nos. 1 and 2, which is supported by plenty of evidence including the videograph and photographs of the ceremonies. It has further been contented that the applicant No. 2 and 3 had demonstrated expenditure of more than 15,00,000/- to the investigating officer with support of documentary and electronic evidence but the investigating officer has not made the same a part of the case diary or the charge-sheet.

6. It has further been stated in the application that the applicant No. 1 had filed a suit for divorce, which was pending at the time of filing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, during pendency of the application, HMA Suit No. 314 of 2016 filed by applicant No. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was decreed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah by means of judgment dated 21.10.2021. Surbhi Tiwari, wife of applicant No. 1 has filed First Appeal No. 936 of 2021, which is pending consideration of this Court sitting at Allahabad.

7. A Supplementary affidavit has been filed o