The court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind before summoning accused, and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amitabh Chaturvedi, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Ms. Preeti Kumari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, 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 order dated 30.01.2024, passed in Case No.3582 of 2009, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No.1, District Unnao.

3. The opposite party no.2, who is the wife of the applicant no.1 filed a Complainant No.1288 of 2008 on 07.05.2008 under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao against all the six persons stating that she got married to the applicant no.1 on 15.02.2002; that all the accused persons used to taunt her for demanding dowry; that they used to keep her jewelry in their possession and they left only a chain and a ring with the opposite party no.2. On 06.03.2008 the accused persons had beaten her up and they were planning to kill her, whereupon she took shelter in the house of her husband's uncle (the applicant no.6) but he also locked her in his house. Her father lodged an F.I.R. on 13.03.2008 and the police got the opposite party no.2 freed from the confinement of the applicant no.6; that the applicant no.6 took away a chain, a locket, two mangalsutras, two rings, a pair of payal (anklets) and three pairs of earrings and Rs.5000/-cash, which were kept in a suitcase being carried by her.

4. The opposite party no.2 got her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. By means of an order dated 15.04.2009 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao had dismissed the complaint under Section 200 (3) Cr.P.C. after taking into consideration the fact that the father of the opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R. alleging harassment for dowry and the present complaint was also filed apparently for the same reason. The opposite party no.2 filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 28.08.2009 and the matter was remanded.

5. The applicants had filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2059 of 2010 and on 14.05.2010 an interim order was passed in their favour, restraining any coercive measures against the applicants in relation to the aforesaid case. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed ofs by means of an order dated 08.12.2011, whereby the summoning order dated 05.10.2009 was quashed and the matter was remanded for passing the order afresh.

6. After remand, the applicants were again summoned vide order dated 08.10.2015 by the learned trial court and the applicants again challenged the same by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5475 of 205 and the proceedings were again stayed by means of an order dated 05.11.2015. However, the petition was disposed off by means of an order dated 30.07.2019, leaving it open to the applicants to file an application for their discharge at the appropriate stage.

7. The applicants filed an application for discharge which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024.

8. The applicants had sought discharge on the ground that F.I.R. No.95 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by the father of the opposite party no.2 substantially on similar sets of allegations in which the applicants have been acquitted by means of a judgment and order dated 04.06.2015. However, the learned trial court was of the view that both the cases involve different allegations and different sets of sections.

9. The learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.