Om Prakash, J. - (1.) The present application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet and entire proceedings of case no. 7320 of 2010, crime no. 14 of 2010 (State of U.P. vs. Kaleem Ismail and others) under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District - Kanpur Nagar and the impugned summoning order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
(2.) Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA appeairng for the State and perused the entire record.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that nothing was mentioned against the applicants in the first First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.') lodged in the year 2005. If refusal was made in the year 2004, lodging of F.I.R. in the year 2010 was beyond the prescribed period for taking cognizance in the matter. Thus, the criminal prosecution is barred by limitation and cannot go-on against the applicants. It was next submitted that the present prosecution was started only to harass the applicants with ulterior motive / malafide intention. Offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out from the prosecution evidence against the applicants as the essential ingredients to constitue the offence u/s 406 IPC are lacking. It was further argued that if the prosecution story as a whole is taken as true then also criminal proceeding for the offence under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, already initiated in the year 2005, can only be started. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 7 SCC 712. It was further submitted that the prosecution launched against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law, which is liable ot be quashed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.;