DEVI CHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge- sheet in Crime No. 57 of 2000 under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Sangrampur District Sultanpur, which has been pending in the Court of A. C. J. M.-II Sultanpur and has been registered as case Crime No. 1660 of 2002. Affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and the learned A. G. A. for the State have been heard. Perused the record.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur had no power to direct reinvestigation of the matter. THE two Investigating Officers earlier had filed final report twice, finding the allegations of the wife to be baseless. It has been argued that allegations of the wife are inherently absurd and not believable because with regard to the alleged incident of 1997, she lodged this FIR in the year 2000 i. e. , after three years. THE Investigating Officer stated the fact that FIR had been lodged much after the husband instituted a suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act as far back as the year 1997 itself, making allegation against wife about her character and also mentioned that she was giving threats of falsely implicating the husband and his family members in a case. THE wife in the FIR has tried to explain the delay by saying that she and her family members has been attempting to strike a compromise but they could not succeed and therefore, ultimately the FIR was lodged. Learned Counsel for the husband has contended that this is wholly after thought because the wife in her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as case No. 98 of 1997 (Annexure No. 10) which she filed on 31st January,1998, after she had received summons of the divorce, case did not make any allegation that she has been subjected to cruelty or torture or ill-treatment or there was demand of dowry on the side of the husband and his family members. It was argued that in these circumstances naming of all the members of the family including two close relations not belonging to the family as accused is nothing else but an abuse of the process of the Court by the wife.