Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
(2.) THE Petitioners being sister -in -law and mother -in -law of the Respondent No. 2, have challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1821 -A of 2010, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, district Lucknow, inter alia on the ground that though the complainant at the time of lodging the First Information Report deposed the case as the case of abduction, rape and demand of dowry, but ultimately through her statement during the course of evidence she admitted marriage with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, though it was an inter -caste marriage, and ultimately denies the charges levelled against the husband. Upon perusal of the First Information Report, I find that substantially she raised allegations only against her husband. The husband has been tried for the offences in Sessions Trial No. 732 of 2010 and has been acquitted from the charges by means of order dated 9th of November, 2010, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge are very much relevant for the decision of the present case. The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder: 12. In my view, having regard to what has been argued from both the sides, it is apparent that the complainant, who had lodged the FIR against her husband, accused, Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, is now reluctant to bring the case to its logical end, but half -hearted stated against her husband to the effect that he did not oppose his family members in the demand of dowry is merely an eye wash. There is nothing to suggest that there was any demand of dowry in the marriage between the complainant and the accused, since the witnesses have clearly stated that the accused and the complainant were having affair as they were studying together and, in the marriages, which are performed due to love -affair, generally, there is no scope of demand of dowry. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, offence under Section 498 -A IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not proved against the accused. the Public Prosecutor has already conceded that other offences for which the accused has been charged, i.e. the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 377 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have not been established. Hence, the accused, Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, deserves to be acquitted of the charge, levelled against him.
(3.) ON this ground the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present proceeding arising out of said case shall be futile exercise that too against the relatives for the allegations for commission of offences as are there.;