MEERA GUPTA Vs. KANCHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three questions of importance have arisen in the instant petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Has Section 498-A, I.P.C. been repealed from the Indian Penal Code and can not be enforced because of the coming into force of Repealing and Amending Act of 1988 (Act No. 19 of 1988)?

(2.) Can Section 187, Cr. P.C. be applied if in one district a complaint against sixteen accused is pending while in another district a police challenged case against ten of those accused is pending regarding same offences?

(3.) If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, are the provisions of Section 210, Cr. P.C. applicable? This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by Meera Gupta (describing herself as miss) and her father Kishan Lal Gupta alias Aspatali Gupta, praying that Criminal Case No. 1134/89, arising out of the First Information Report dated 25-3-1988, lodged by Smt. Kanchan Gupta under Section 498N494, I.P.C. of P.S. Kotwali, Fatehpur, be quashed on the ground that in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Smt. Kanchan Gupta his initiated complaint Case No. 747/88 against sixteen accused, all of whom have been summoned under Section 494/109, I.P.C. by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 16-6-1988 and ten accused being common in both cases, the latter police-case in Fatehpur should not be permitted to stand. The allegations are that Smt. Kanchan Gupta daughter of Jagannath Prasad who is a resident of district Sultanpur, was married to Ashok Kumar Gupta of district Fatehpur. However, Smt. Kanchan Gupta not having good looks and repeated demands for a motorcycle and some cash being made, altercations used to take place and the complainant was put to harassment. In the meantime Ashok Kumar developed illicit relations with Meera Devi, daughter of Kishan Lal Gupta alias Aspatali Gupta of Allahabad and married her. When the complainant deputed her brother to go to Ashok Kumar to make inquiries and fetch the goods and valuables, he was maltreated. Ashok Kumar had althrough beaten the complainant. The sixteen accused were related to or are friends of Ashok Kumar. In the F.I.R. ten out of the sixteen accused have been nominated with no reference to any date on which any specific offence was committed. It is not being disputed that the allegations in the pith and substance made in the F.I.R. are similar to those made in the complaint. Sri R.B. Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri RP. Singh and Sri Pradeep Verma, for the complainant/informed (Kanchan Gupta) and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard in this case at length. Sri Sahai argues that the complaint having already been taken cognizance at Sultanpur, the latter F.I.R. giving rise to the policechallaned case in Fatehpur, should be quashed. Sri R.P. Singh, repels this argument by relying upon the fact that in police case, witnesses will be examined by the State and not the complainant and as such the state case should be asked to proceed. The other argument is that by suitable directions under Section 18.7, Cr. P.C., the two cases referred to above, be amalgamated and tried at one place. In this connection, reliance was placed on the provisions contained in Section 210, Cr. P.C., the applicability of which was disputed by Sri Sahai. Point No.1