THE SCOPE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IS MUCH WIDER THAN THAT OF UNDER SECTION 397, 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

ORDER :

1. Shri A.S. Bhadouriya, Counsel for the applicants. Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/State. Shri Rajeev Sharma, Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard on the question of Admission.

2. With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard.

3. This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. No. 578/2015 and all other consequential proceedings.

4. The necessary facts for the disposal of this application in short are that on 18-8-2015, a F.I.R. was lodged on the information of the complainant/injured Smt. Deepti Chaturvedi against the applicants for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 452, 324, 323, 294, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant Smt. Deepti Chaturvedi that the husband and in-laws of the complainant forcibly entered in her parents’ house and started demanding Rs. 5 lakhs and also started abusing the complainant and also assaulted the complainant as a result of which she sustained several injuries. She was admitted in the hospital and in the M.L.C. total four injuries including one incised penetrating wound was also found. On the statements of the complainant Smt. Deepti Chaturvedi and the statements of other witnesses, the police registered the offence.

5. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The applicants had made a complaint to the higher authorities about their false implication and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, City (East) Gwalior, who had come to the conclusion that the entire incident appears to be suspicious. However, in spite of the enquiry report given by the Additional Superintendent of Police, the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet. It was further pleaded that in fact under the pressure of Shri Saket Tiwari, Advocate, who is the real brother of the complainant, a false report has been lodged. The applicant No. 1 had also filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and in fact it is the complainant who does not wish to reside with the applicant No. 1.

6. The complainant had objected the bail application filed by the applicants by making false allegations, which clearly show that the sole intention of the complainant is to some how send the applicants behind the bars. The case diary statements of the witnesses were recorded and they have not stated about the demand of dowry by the applicants on the date of incident. If the applicants had come to the house of the father of the complainant and they had assaulted the complainant, then why they were allowed to leave the house. Why they were not stopped and confined. The fact that the applicants were not apprehended on the spot and they were allowed to go scot free after committing the incident is a circumstance which leads to only one inference, that in fact no incident did take place and the entire allegations are false and baseless. It is further submitted that in fact the family dispute is being given the color of Criminal offence. He further submitted that the report given by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gwalior can be considered by this Court while exercising powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that only that part of the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police can be taken into consideration which is in favour of the accused persons and if this Court comes to a conclusion that any part of the report of the Additional Superintendent is not worth reliance or it is against the accused persons, then that part of the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police cannot be taken into consideration against the applicants and in such a situation, the appellants should be allowed to lead defence evidence in the Trial.

7. In nutshell the contention of the Counsel for the applicants is that the Court can consider the report of the Additional Sup