IMPORTANT POINT
No offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be made out against a friend of the husband, as the applicant is neither the husband nor a relative of the husband.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri Rishabh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11843 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naveen Kumar Verma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2017 under section 498-A, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, 'the D.P. Act'), Police Station- Civil Lines District Allahabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as charge sheet No. 134 of 2018 dated 30.6.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no offence, whatsoever can be said to have been made out against the applicant herein as for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C., the accused must be either husband or relative of the husband of the victim. The applicant herein is neither the husband nor the relative of the husband of the opposite party no. 3, therefore, she is not covered within the provisions of section 498-A I.P.C. and no offence whatsoever can be said to have been made out against the applicant herein. Similarly no offence under section 3/4 of D.P. Act can be said to have been made out against the applicant as she is not a family member or remote family member of the husband of the opposite party no. 3. It is further submitted that though the applicant herein has been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of some call details according to which husband of the opposite party no. 3 and applicant were having long conversation but the fact is that the husband of the opposite party no. 3 and the applicant were classmate and are good friends and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion on the part of the opposite party no. 3. No overt act has been alleged against the applicant except that she was in the talking terms with the husband of the opposite party no. 3. Similarly no offence under section 120-B I.P.C. would be made out against the applicant herein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 submitted that it is only because of the applicant, the matrimonial life of the opposite party no. 3 has been spoiled and she has been ignored by her husband and various allegations have been made against the applicant and the husband of the opposite party no. 3 and a divorce petition has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no. 3 due to intervention by the applicant herein. Therefore, she was abetting the husband of the opposite party no. 3 to divorce the opposite party no. 3 with object to torture and harass her, therefore, she was also involved in view of the provisions of the section 120-B I.P.C. in the offence.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that as per call details collected by the Investigating Officer, it is established that there was continuous conversation between the applicant and the husband of the opposite party no. 3, therefore, it should be presumed that she was abetting the husband of the opposite party no. 3 to divorce his wife/opposite party no. 3 for which cruelty was being committed by the husband upon the opposite party no. 3 at the behest of the applicant herein. Therefore she is also involved in the offence.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case it is apparent that the applicant herein is allegedly the friend of the husband of the opposite party no.3. As they were the college friends and used to talk to one another, the applicant herein has been implicated in the instant case for demand of dowry and harassment by the husband and the in-laws of the opposite party no.3. She has been implicated in the in