- (1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge- sheet in Crime No. 57 of 2000 under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Sangrampur District Sultanpur, which has been pending in the Court of A. C. J. M.-II Sultanpur and has been registered as case Crime No. 1660 of 2002. Affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and the learned A. G. A. for the State have been heard. Perused the record. Admittedly, the husband filed a divorce petition against the wife in the year 1997 and the wife in connection with those proceedings on 31-1-1998 moved an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for grant of interim maintenance and expenses for opposing the said petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, Ext. 10 is the copy of the said application which was registered R. S. No. 98 of 1997. In the said application, nothing was stated by the wife about the demand of any dowry or any cruel treatment. She only stated that without any cause, the husband and his family members were not inviting the wife from her parents' house to their house and have filed a baseless case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The divorce was being sought on the ground that the wife was of loose character and she was maintaining extra marital relations with other man. It was further alleged by the husband that the wife had left his house on 24-5-1996 after collecting money and jewellery and is not coming back since then. The husband further alleged that she was giving threats that she would implicate him and his family members in a false case of demand of dowry etc. The wife-opposite party No. 3 also moved an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. on 26-1-2000 in the Court of A. C. J. M.-V, Sultanpur, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to this petition. In this petition for the first time in the year 2000, she mentioned about the demand of dowry and harassment but admitted that she has been living at her parents' house since 1997 when she was turned out of her marital home forcibly after being assaulted. She then also lodged FIR on 1-3-2000 against the present petitioners under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which has been registered as Crime Misc. Case No. 57 of 2000. The police after investigation concluded that the case was baseless and totally false. A final report was prepared by the police and was submitted for onward submission to the Court. The Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, however directed that the matter be further investigate through S. I. S. , Sultanpur. The second Investigating Officer again agreed with the conclusion of the first investigating officer and again submitted final report in the matter. Before this final report could reach the Court, the wife again made an application before the Superintendent of Police Sultanpur, who ordered reinvestigation into the matter through Inspector R. K. Singh of S. I. S. In the reinvestigation, the third Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 23-5- 2001 against 9 petitioners out of whom petitioners No. 8 and 9 are resident of Pratapgarh and are maternal uncle and aunt of the husband. Rests of the petitioners are four brothers of the husband, his father and mother besides husband himself. The petitioners preferred a writ petition in this Court and their arrest was stayed during the pendency of the investigation.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur had no power to direct reinvestigation of the matter. THE two Investigating Officers earlier had filed final report twice, finding the allegations of the wife to be baseless. It has been argued that allegations of the wife are inherently absurd and not believable because with regard to the alleged incident of 1997, she lodged this FIR in the year 2000 i. e. , after three years. THE Investigating Officer stated the fact that FIR had been lodged much after the husband instituted a suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act as far back as the year 1997 itself, making allegation against wife about her character and also mentioned that she was giving threats of falsely implicating the husband and his family members in a case. THE wife in the FIR has tried to explain the delay by saying that she and her family members has been attempting to strike a compromise but they could not succeed and therefore, ultimately the FIR was lodged. Learned Counsel for the husband has contended that this is wholly after thought because the wife in her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as case No. 98 of 1997 (Annexure No. 10) which she filed on 31st January,1998, after she had received summons of the divorce, case did not make any allegation that she has been subjected to cruelty or torture or ill-treatment or there was demand of dowry on the side of the husband and his family members. It was argued that in these circumstances naming of all the members of the family including two close relations not belonging to the family as accused is nothing else but an abuse of the process of the Court by the wife. Learned Counsel for the wife-opposite party No. 3 conceded that the case could not be reinvestigated but his contention is that in the instant case, it was not a reinvestigation but it was further investigation. Further, it has been argued that the investigation has been done in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P. C. and the case is covered under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. The Investigating Officer has filed charge- sheet after collecting necessary evidence. The State has also filed counter-affidavit and took a similar stand but in para 9, the State has admitted that on the application of the first informant the case was reinvestigated.;