The court ruled that vague allegations against family members do not warrant quashing of proceedings, while affirming the prosecution of the primary accused.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicants- Jai Kishan And 2 Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It is expedient in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may graciously be that pleased to quash the Charge sheet No.114/2016 dated 20.10.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.839/2017 (State Versus Jai Kishan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.139/2016, Under Section 498A,323,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Case No.839/2017 (State Versus Jai Kishan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.139/2016, Under Section 498A,323,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra, Additional court the in pending Chief Judicial Magistrate, of Court No.10, Agra, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court.

And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

4. Present application came up for admission on 06.11.2017 and this Court passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 839 of 2016, (State Vs. Jai Kishan and others) U/s 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act , Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Agra, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra.

After having carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that so far as applicant no.1 (husband) is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.

The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant No.1 is hereby refused.

So far as applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant No.1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.

Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application.

Opposite party No.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 only. "

5. On the matter being taken up today, the learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants do not wish to press this application any further. He, therefore, contends that this application be dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants.

7. In view of above, this application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.