A.K. Roopanwal, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal case No. 6892 of 2005 State v/s. Saimual Albert and Ors., under Sec. 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) It appears from the record that an FIR at crime No. 530/04, under Sec. 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against the applicant and four others at the behest of Shri Prem Prakash Maseeh. It was alleged in the FIR that the daughter of the informant namely Archana was married to Sudhir Albert S/o Saimual Albert on 16.5.03. Sudhir Albert was said to be working in a company in Abu Dhabi and was said to be earning Rs. 45,000/ -p.m. The father of the applicant was a retired Merchant Navy Officer. In the marriage Saimual Albert, his wife Preeti Albert, brother -in -law of the applicant Nasir Jamal and Sudhir Albert demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ -and jewellery which was paid. The daughter of the informant went to her husband on 17.5.03 and came to her parents on 20.5.03. She informed on her return that she was kept aloof from her husband by her father -in -law and others and was treated with cruelty. Her husband also did not object to the acts committed by the other family members. The accused were not satisfied with the material given in the marriage and were saying that they were not paid Rs. 5,00,000/ -. She was told that she had to do service and if she does not do, her relations with her husband would be broken. When she showed inability, she was treated with cruelty, both mental and physical. The daughter of the informant provided financial help to her in -laws, but even then they did not mend their ways and up to 12.2.04 the lady paid about Rs. 1,25,000/ -to her in -laws and also gave her whole jewellery. On 27.5.03 the applicant left India for Abu Dhabi on the promise that he would call his wife and daughter and also said that his wife was free to go to her parents any time. Even after leaving India by the husband the other family members continued atrocities against the lady and apprehending her murder. She was called by her parents. On 9.9.04 the applicant came back from Abu Dhabi and put a demand for Rs. 5,00,000/ -before the informant. When informant showed his inability, the applicant did not take her wife with him, however, in order to make life peaceful the informant sent his daughter to her husband, but she was sent back. On 16.6.04 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons came at the house of the informant at Kanpur Nagar. The informant in order to bring certain items from the market left the house. The accused persons including the applicant demanded Rs. 5,00,000/ -from the wife of the informant. When she refused, all the accused beat the daughter of the informant and also tried to strangulate her. The FIR was investigated upon and the charge sheet was submitted.
(3.) I have heard Mr. D.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. Mr. Mishra challenged the entire proceedings on the following grounds. 1 That the cognizance order dated 18.3.05 passed on the charge sheet is illegal as it has been passed without the application of mind and therefore, the whole proceedings based on such cognizance order are liable to be set aside; 2 That five persons were named in the FIR but the charge sheet has been submitted only against two persons which itself falsifies the prosecution case; 3 That the jurisdiction of the court at Kanpur Nagar is not made out.;