A.F.R.

Court No. - 89

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1540 of 2022

Applicant :- Ashish And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the

State by means of Video-Conferencing and perused the record.

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with

a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including

charge-sheet dated 04.09.2020 as well as cognizance and

summoning order dated 11.10.2021 of Case No. 15977 of 2021

arising out of Case Crime No. 309 of 2020 (State Vs. Ashish &

Others) under Sections 494, 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section

3/4 of D.P. Act against the applicant no. 1 and under Sections

498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against

Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, P.S., Sipri, District, Jhansi pending in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that from

the matter available on record, offences under Sections 494,

498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act are not made

out against the applicants. Further submitted that applicant no. 1

Ashish is the husband of the victim, Seema whereas applicant

nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. Next

submitted that there is six days' delay in lodgement of the F.I.R.

Case has been lodged with ulterior motive and mala-fide

intention to harass the applicants. There are only general

allegations against the applicants, hence this Petition.

Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and

submitted that there are specific allegations of demand of

dowry and beating the victim by the applicants. Factual

controversy cannot be settled in this proceeding under Section

482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgement of

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1992 AIR (1) page 694

(State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal), para 26 of

Geeta Mehlotra Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal

No. 1674 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547 of 2010

& para 6 of Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

at Srinagar in CRM (M) No. 83 of 2020 vide judgement dated

25.08.2021.

The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the

applicant do not apply to the facts of the present case because

victim, Seema in her statement recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C., which is at page no. 33 of the paper-book, has

specifically stated that on 5.08.2020, she again went to her

nuptial home with her husband, Ashish. Father-in-law, Gauri

Shankar, mother-in-law, Prem Kumari and two sisters-in-law

beaten her and threatened to pour kerosene oil. She anyhow

escaped from there and came to her father's home. She has

further stated that she came to know that her husband, Ashish

has solemnized another marriage with Deeksha, daughter of

Pahalwan, Resident of Talaur, P.S. Shahjahanpur, District Jhansi

during lockdown.

Learned counsel for the applicant specifically mentioned the

judgement of High Court of Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir and

Ladakh at Srinagar in CRM (M) No. 83 of 2020 wherein on the

basis of non conducting of preliminary enquiry, F.I.R. relating

to matrimonial dispute was quashed.

Conducting or not conducting preliminary enquiry is the

domain of Investigating Officer on which basis, F.I.R. cannot be

quashed.

In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of

Maharastra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held:

"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with

circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to

be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the

Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness

or otherwise of