1

A.F.R.

Reserved on: 15.03.2022

Delivered on: 13.04.2022

Court No. - 88

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29682 of 2017

Applicant :- Vivek Mathura

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Dubey,

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pooja Saxena (In person)

and

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36696 of 2017

Applicant :- U.C. Mathur And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

1.

Since both the applications arise out of the same proceedings, they

are being decided by this common order.

2.

Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Smt.

Pooja Saxena, opposite party no.2 appearing in person as well as Sri

L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3.

The present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been

moved seeking quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 203

of 2017 (Smt. Pooja Saxena vs Vivek Mathur and others), under Section

406 I.P.C., Police Station- Hari Parwat, District- Agra, pending in the

court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5 as well as

summoning order dated 03.07.2017 whereby applicants have been

summoned to face trial under Section 406 I.P.C.

4.

In brief, prosecution case is that opposite party no.2/complainant

lodged a criminal complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra alleging therein that presently she along

with her minor son is residing with her mother who is an old lady and

suffering from brain cancer at House No. 307, Siddharth Apartment near

Civil Court Compound, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra. The

2

marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant Vivek

Mathur on 22.01.2003 who is resident of B-8, Parivahan Marg, Chomu

House, Jaipur, Rajasthan. In marriage, family members of opposite party

no.2 had spent about a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. The family members of her

in-laws were not pleased with dowry given in her marriage. At the time

of marriage jewellery of gold and silver, cash and other articles were

given as gift. The applicants and Smt. Shalini Handoo, sister-in-law of

opposite party no.2, had kept her stridhan jointly. After marriage,

opposite party no.2 was harassed and maltreated by her husband and his

family members due to demand of additional dowry. In the year 2004,

the applicant Vivek Mathur got job and opposite party no.2 moved to

Bangalore along with her husband where also she was physically and

mentally harassed by her husband. In December, 2008 opposite party

no.2 gave birth to a son, thereafter, behavior of her in-laws become more

cruel towards her. While opposite party no.2 was residing with her

husband at Bangalore, her husband filed a divorce petition with mala

fide intention in the Family Court, Jaipur. On 15.02.2015 opposite party

no.2 had gone to Jaipur from Bangalore to attend the case. Due to threat

extended by the applicants and her financial crisis, opposite party no.2

along with her minor son came Agra on 16.02.2015 and started living

with her mother. The applicants were using and damaging her Stridhan

and they had denied its access to opposite party no.2. Thereafter, on

17.10.2015, opposite party no.2 sent legal notice to the applicants and

her sister-in-law for returning her Stridhan. The notice was received by

the applicants but the notice sent to Smt. Shalini Handoo was got

returned with the connivance of the postman with endorsement that she

was not found on repeated visit. On 27.08.2016, opposite party no.2

again sent notice to the applicants for returning her Stridhan which was

refused by them. In spite of repeated notice, applicants were not

returning her Stridhan and were misusing it. Thereafter, the instant

complaint was filed on 19.01.2017 in the court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra and later on it was transferred to

the court of Addi