MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri Sreesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.867/2014 by Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, District Unnao whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon the charge -sheet arising out of Crime Case No.278/2014 under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants have further prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case No.867/2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, District Unnao.
(3.) A perusal of the record indicates that by the order dated 26.08.2014, notice was issued to the opposite party No.2 and the applicants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.12,000/ - in the registry of the Court. The matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Meanwhile, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.867/2014 were stayed. Subsequently, by the order dated 09.10.2014, a sum of Rs.10,000/ - was released in favour of the opposite party No.2 and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 28.10.2014. It appears that the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court, but in spite of several sessions, the parties could not reach a settlement and consequently the mediation failed. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicant No.1 was married to the opposite Party No.2 on 12.10.2013 but soon after the marriage, the applicants started demanding dowry and treating the opposite party No.2 with cruelty. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2 and the police after a detailed investigation submitted charge -sheet. The submission is that the opposite party No.2 herself did not want to stay with her husband applicant No.1, but the investigating officer did not take into account this important aspect of the matter. In the meantime, the opposite party No.2 become pregnant and in due course of time delivered a baby. The applicants made several efforts to pursue the opposite party No.2 to come to her matrimonial home and perform her marital obligations, but the opposite party No.2 did not agree. The other applicants, namely, Smt. Tayyabad Khatoon, who is the mother -in -law of the opposite party No.2, the applicants No. 4 and 5, who are sister -in -law and brother -in -law of the deceased have been unnecessary made accused in this case. Although there was no evidence against them, but the investigating officer submitted charge -sheet against them also and the learned Magistrate also without taking into consideration the evidence collected during the investigation, took cognizance of the matter in a mechanical way. The applicants No.2 to 5 are going to be harassed in a frivolous litigation in case the proceedings of criminal case against them are not quashed. The applicant No.1, who is the husband of the opposite party No.2, is also innocent and has not committed any offence. The entire allegation made against him with regard to demand of dowry etc. are absolutely false and incorrect.;