NEHA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rishabh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11843 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Naveen Kumar Verma and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2017 under Sec. 498-A, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, 'the D.P. Act'), Police Station- Civil Lines District Allahabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as charge sheet No. 134 of 2018 dtd. 30/6/2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no offence, whatsoever can be said to have been made out against the applicant herein as for the offence under Sec. 498-A I.P.C., the accused must be either husband or relative of the husband of the victim. The applicant herein is neither the husband nor the relative of the husband of the opposite party no. 3, therefore, she is not covered within the provisions of Sec. 498-A I.P.C. and no offence whatsoever can be said to have been made out against the applicant herein. Similarly no offence under Sec. 3/4 of D.P. Act can be said to have been made out against the applicant as she is not a family member or remote family member of the husband of the opposite party no. 3. It is further submitted that though the applicant herein has been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of some call details according to which husband of the opposite party no. 3 and applicant were having long conversation but the fact is that the husband of the opposite party no. 3 and the applicant were classmate and are good friends and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion on the part of the opposite party no. 3. No overt act has been alleged against the applicant except that she was in the talking terms with the husband of the opposite party no. 3. Similarly no offence under Sec. 120-B I.P.C. would be made out against the applicant herein.