The court held that proceedings under Section 498A IPC were malicious and lacked evidentiary support, justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar, J.

Heard Sri. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State opposite party no.1, Sri. Mohit Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.03.2015 filed in case crime no.1333/2015, under Section 498A IPC, Police Station Bilaspur, District Pilibhit as well as entire proceeding of case no.950 of 2015, arising out of case crime no. 1333 of 2014, under Section 498A IPC, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage between applicant and opposite party no.2 was solemnized as per hindu rituals on 23.06.2004 out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with two sons. The marital relations between the couple continued to be in harmony and without any kind of dispute for approximately 10 years and during this period no complaint of any nature was made by opposite party no.2 against the applicant or his family members.

4. He further submits that the bone of contention between the couple is that the opposite party no.2 left the house of the applicant along with certain ancestral jewellery/valuable, and despite repeated requests, she was not returning to the matrimonial home to perform her marital obligations, the applicant filed a complaint on 17.09.2014 before the S.H.O., Police Station D.D.A. Flat's Bindapur, New Delhi with respect to an incident, which had taken place on 31.08.2014 wherein his in-laws had threatened him with dire consequences and abusive language. Subsequently, a notice dated 07.10.2014 was given on behalf of Jagdish Prasad Gangwar father of the applicant addressed to Basudev Gangwar father of opposite party no.2 whereby in specific terms it was mentioned that the opposite party no.2 should come and perform her marital obligations.

As a counterblast and basically to evade from returning to the matrimonial home an FIR (subject matter of controversy in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant, his father, mother and other relatives. In the FIR it was alleged that the marriage was solemnized on 23.06.2004, but after demise of the real brother of opposite party no.2 in 2013, her husband and in-laws started making a demand for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs. The other aspersions, which has been made in the FIR is with respect to two incidents dated 07.10.2014 and 03.10.2014 wherein it has been alleged that the applicant tried to commit forcible carnal intercourse with the opposite party no.2.

5. He further submits that investigation commenced in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 06.11.2014 in which she reiterated the prosecution story narrated in the FIR. The statement of Basudev Gangwar father of opposite party no.2 was also recorded, who tried to corroborate the allegations made by his daughter. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate in which the opposite party no.2 yet again reiterated her earlier version.

6. He further submits that a subsequent statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 23.03.2015 wherein certain specific queries were put forth to her by the Investigating Officer. For ready reference the subsequent statement recorded on 23.03.2015 are quoted hereunder:-

7. He further submits that thereafter medical examination of the victim was conducted on two dates i.e. 16.12.2014 and 13.07.2014, which was after lapse of approximately 74 to 75 days from the date of the alleged incident of carnal intercourse. The medical examination reports of the victim did not corroborate the allegations made by her in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. inasmuch in