JUDGMENT

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

Heard Shri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State- opposite parties.

2. This application has been filed to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5150 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 86 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and Section ¾ of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2020, Police Station Dohari-Ghat, District Mau, and the charge sheet dated 11.05.2019 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 18.04.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate F.T.C (Crime against Women), District Mau.

3. In brief, fact of the case are that the applicants lodged the aforesaid F.I.R in P.S. Madhuban, District- Mau, in which after investigation a charge-sheet has been submitted in the aforementioned Sections against the applicants upon which on 18.04.2022 cognizance has been taken and applicants are summoned as accused.

4. In the application and the affidavit the applicant has averred that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 03.03.2019 as per Muslim Rites & Rituals. The I.O had given notice under Section 4 1-A of the Cr.P.C to the applicants, they appeared and their statements were recorded by the I.O but he did not arrest them as they fully cooperated with the investigation.

5. From perusal of the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses, no prima-facie offences under the aforesaid Sections are made out. There is no evidence to prosecute them. The marriage between the applicant nos. 5 and 6 (both are the wife and husband) was performed 18 years before the alleged incident; they are living in Village : Banzari, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau. There is 40 k.m. distance between both the village. The applicant no. 4 is also a married woman and lives in her matrimonial house with her husband, whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3 unmarried brother and sister are living with applicant no. 1, hence they had been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The I.O. recorded the statement of Head Muharrir and added Section ¾ of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2020. There is no medical report in support of the prosecution version no date, time and place of the alleged incident has been given by the Opposite party no. 2 and the witnesses, no specific role has been assigned except general role against all the applicants. There is no allegation of additional demand of dowry, learned Magistrate neither perused the charge-sheet nor applied his judicial mind and has taken cognizance under Sections 4 98-A, 323, 504 & 506, I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P. Act; while the charge-sheet was submitted under aforesaid Sections and also under Section ¾ D.P. Act and ¾ Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2020. The learned Magistrate has not assigned the reason regarding not taking the cognizance under the impugned all Sections.

7. Prior to the F.I.R, the opposite party had also filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was rejected by the concerned Court, thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which has also been rejected thereafter she filed second application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which is still pending.

8. The applicants are wholly innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Opposite party no. 2 wanted to live separately, therefore the disputes arose with her husband, who refused her request thereafter she went to her