Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. - (1.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.7412 of 2005 (Smt. Sushama vs. Sundar Lal and others), u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(3.) Submission of counsel for the applicants is that actually all the allegations made in the complaint are concocted, false and have been deliberately cooked up in order to create pressure upon the applicants to partition the land. Applicant No.1 Sundar Lal is the elder father-in-law, applicant no.2 Anoop Singh is father-in-law, applicant no.3 Smt. Prema Devi is mother-in-law and applicant no.4 Mahendra Singh is brother-in-law (devar) of complainant-opposite party no.2. Further submission is that the husband of complainant has not been made accused in this case because he is in collusion with complainant. The reality is that the complainant and her husband want that the property should be partitioned but the same is being resisted by the applicants as the property in question is ancestral. Therefore eventually the complainant has decided to contrive the present untoward mechanism to exert coercive pressure upon the family. It has been emphasized by the counsel that in reality on the date of incident the complainant never lived in the place where she claims to have been present while in fact she along with her husband had left the village long back and had started living along with her husband in the state of Haryana, where her husband was in service from year 2000 as Electrician in a firm known as Deepak Electricals, situated at 1041, Sector-21-C, Faridabad (Haryana). The complainant's husband was also a member of Employees State Insurance Corporation in Faridabad (Haryana) and the identity card has also been issued by the Corporation to the husband of opposite party no.2 in which the name of opposite party no.2-complainant herself has been mentioned at serial no.2. Counsel has relied in this regard upon Annexure nos.6 and 7 which have been filed along with this application and has tried to show from these documents about the factum of the service of complainant's husband in the aforesaid company and in the state of Haryana. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the copy of Rashan Card in proof of the residence of complainant in Haryana, and the same has been annexed as Annexure No.8 along with this application. Counsel has also tried to explain that it is because of same background which is at the back of not nominating the husband as accused who is normally one of the prime accused in such cases with such allegations as have been made by the complainant. If the husband himself was not interested in any demand of dowry and if husband was not ill-treating his wife, there was hardly any occasion for other in-laws to have misadventured on that line. Counsel has tried to elaborate upon the elements of high improbability in the prosecution story and the unlikelihood of the applicants for having indulged in such kind of activities as has been alleged. Counsel has further tried to argue about the false nature of accusations made in the complaint on the ground that in the statement given by the wife in the Court u/s 200 Cr.P.C, she has herself gone to admit that initially she tried to lodge a complaint in the police station but the version gave out was not recorded correctly and the version that was recorded was a different from the actual version. She has tried to explain the change of version on the ground that the police department was under pressure and that is why her version was not correctly recorded. Contention is that it is a clear admission that the earlier said version given by the complainant in the police station at an earlier point of time was a very different version and the names of the accused were also quite different from the latter version which she has developed and given out in the Court in the present complaint. Submission is that the applicants are very ordinary persons and there is absolutely no chance for them having any kind of influence or clout which they could have wielded on the police department. They are simple farmers belonging to a very low economic strata of the society. The argument is that the change of version in the complaint is a proven fact and that also cuts at the very root of the credibility of the version given in the complaint and the continuation of proceedings, according to the counsel, in this conspicuous background shall result in abuse of process of the Court.;