AJIT PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 13.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mainpuri, in Session Trial No. 3 of 2018, State of U.P. v. Vipul Pratap Singh and others, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri (arising out of Case Crime No. 436 of 2017), at Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, wherein application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further examining applicant PW-1, his wife Shashi Prabha PW-3 and his son Rudra Pratap Singh PW-4 in above trial by application 28-A and the same was rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant is complainant/informant of above case crime number, wherein death of his daughter under suspicious circumstances, within seven years of marriage, had occurred and it was by way of suicide regarding demand of dowry and cruelty by her husband and their close relatives, wherein bail to father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were granted by this Court and bail to husband is still pending for disposal. The opposite party no. 3 is Police Inspector posted at Mathura, who is father-in-law of deceased, was exercising pressure over informant and his family members for not giving evidence against accused persons, otherwise to face dire consequences, but applicant was not afraid of it and this case crime number was got registered, wherein trial was proceeded, but applicant managed to get a forged case lodged for offence punishable under Section 376-D I.P.C. at Police Station Raya Mathura, wherein he managed to get co-accused Devendra Singh arrested, thereafter, a threat for giving evidence in favour of accused persons were extended and ultimately applicant succumbed to above threat. He, his wife and his son gave evidence before trial court and they have not supported case of prosecution. Even then, blackmailing was being made by accused persons. Then application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examining those three witnesses, who were examined by trial court, because their evidence were under threat and were not independent evidence and this application 28A was rejected by trial court under abuse of process of law. Hence, this application with above prayer.