- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This matter is taken up in the revised list. Learned Counsel for the applicant Sri V. P. Gupta is not present. Sri Amit Sinha learned Counsel for the respondent who had filed his power on 21. 8. 2007 is present alongwith learned AGA.
(2.) TWO applicants Akhil Kumar Jain and Smt. Kanchan Jain have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2700 of 2006 pending in the Court of CJM, Mainpuri, appellated as Vijay Kumar lain v. Akhil Kumar Jain and others under section 498-A, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P. S. Kot-wali Mainpuri, district Mainpuri. It transpires that an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved by Vijay Kumar Jam against the two applicants on which the Magistrate ordered for registration of FIR and investigation. Under the orders of the Magistrate FIR of Crime No. 357 of 2005 under section 498-A, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered at P. S. Kotwali Mainpuri district Mainpuri on 22. 9. 2005 at 7. 30 A. M in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 23. 8. 2005 at 9 A. M. The allegations levelled in the FIR were that Mukti Jain had married vvijh Akhil Kumar Jain s/o Deep Chand 'jain and Smt. Kanchan Jain on 6. 12. 2001 according to Hindu customs and rights-in which two lacs and -fifty thousand rupees with some articles including Washing Machine, Coloured T. V. etc. were given as dowry. Soon after the marriage Mukti Jain was harassed and the two applicants started demanding dowry of Rs. 1 lac from Mukti Jain. When the informant Vijay Kumar Jain respondent No. 2 who is the father of Mukti Jain, came to know about the said demand he tried to pacify the matter with mother-in-law and the husband. However, the prayer of the father was unheeded and ultimately on 11. 12. 2002 he received a telephone call that Mukti Jain is seriously ill. Accompanied by his another daughter Kirti Jain the informant reached at the house of Deep Chand Jain on 12. 12. 2002 and found his daughter in a precarious condition who was in family way. She was not being properly treated medically. He advised the father-in-law Sri Deep Chand Jain for providing better treatment but Deep Chand Jain asked him to take back Mukti Jain and get her treated well. When the informant brought his daughter back with him her in-laws had not returned her ornaments and Stridhan.
(3.) ON 21. 1. 2003 Mukti Jain was blessed with a daughter in B. R. Nursing Home Mainpuri for which the in-laws were informed but they did not care for her. After that respondent No. 2 requested to take back Mukti Jain but her in-laws refused to bring her back. Ultimately on 6. 5. 2005 Mukti Jain filed an application for maintenance under section 125 Cr. P. C. Because of the aforesaid litigation on 23. 8. 2005 the applicants Akhil Jain and Deep Chandra Jain at 9 a. m. came to the house of the informant and abused the whole family and threatened them with their lives. Wilh such allegations a FIR was lodged by the father respondent No. 2 at the concerned police station. The usual investigation ultimately culminated into filing of a final report favourable to the applicants by the police on 16. 10. 2005 (annexure 5 ). I. O. came to the conclusion that informant intentionally does not want to send his daughter to her in-laws house because Mukti Jain is doing service in district Mainpuri and she also does not want to join the company of her husband and her in-laws and the allegations of demand of dowry and torture are false and fabricated.;