Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3291 (ALL)

Prabha Verma. v. State of U. P. .

2015-10-16

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. Heard Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta-II, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused-applicants for setting aside the charge-sheet dated 7.2.2008 in Case No. 165 of 2008 arising out of Case crime no. 16 of 2008, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, D.P.Act), Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur. 3. It appears tht marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 2 Ateesh Kumar way back on 11.2.2005 wherein substantial amount of dowry was allegedly given. It is stated that on account of perceived insufficiency of dowry and non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand, wife was repeatedly tortured and subjected to cruelty. She was not given food and was confined into a toilet for a substantial period. Ultimately, wife informed her parents when she fell ill. Her parents took his daughter to her parental home and provided treatment. One baby child was born out of this wedlock while she was at her parental home. 4. This matrimonial discord impelled the wife to initiate several proceedings including the present one wherein First Information Report (in short, FIR) was filed under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 /4 D.P.Act. The matter was investigated and Police filed charge sheet under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 /4 D.P.Act. This charge-sheet is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the proceedings under section 125, 126 and 128 Cr.P.C. matter went up to this Court, wherein a coordinate Bench on 18.9.2012 passed the following order : - "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is likelihood of the present matter being settled through the process of Mediation. He further submitted that the applicant is ready to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 towards full and final settlement of all his claims. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 for appearing before this Court in person on 19.10.2012. List on 19.10.2012." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a consolidated sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 towards full and final settlement of all his claims. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 for appearing before this Court in person on 19.10.2012. List on 19.10.2012." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a consolidated sum of Rs. six lacs was paid towards full and final settlement of all the claims, therefore, no proceedings under section 498-A can sustain. 7. I am afraid this argument of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived for the simple reason that proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application No. 30552 of 2012 (Ateesh Kumar Verma versus State of U.P. and another) pertained to proceedings under sections 125,126 and 128 Cr.P.C. where question of maintenance was involved. This dispute was settled by various orders of this Court in that petition only. The proceedings under section 498-A IPC is a separate criminal proceeding, which ordinarily could not have been decided in a petition under section 125, 126 and 128 Cr.P.C. No specific order for quashing of the present proceeding has ever passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The criminal proceedings could not have been decided merely on payment of maintenance amount unless both the parties specifically pleaded and obtained appropriate orders from the court concerned. 8. I have carefully perused the order dated 13.12.2012 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 30552 of 2012. In this order, there is absolutely no mention of present proceedings under section 498-A IPC. The said order was specifically passed in relation to the case under sections 125, 126, & 128 Cr.P.C. Now, question arise whether of its own the the present petition can be allowed ? 9. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 10. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused. 11. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed. ………………