MAYANK GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel assisted by Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dtd. 15/1/2019 in Session Trial No. 1239 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Mayank Gautam) under Ss. (in short, 'u/S') 498-A, 304-B, 323, 302 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, 'I.P.C.') and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the D.P. Act'), arising out of Case Crime No. 1711 of 2016, Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffaragar, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.-3), Muzaffarnagar.

(3.) The brief facts of the instant case are that on 20/7/2016, an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2/Jalaj Sharma being Case Crime No. 287 of 2016, alleging herein that the sister (Shailey) of the opposite party no.2 was married to the applicant no.1/Mayank Gautam, as per the Hindu customs and rituals on 2/3/2016 and various gifts were given during the marriage and a total sum of Rs.9,00,000.00 was spent by the family of the opposite party no.2 in the marriage of his sister. Since after the marriage, the applicant and the other family members of the applicant started harassing and assaulting the sister of the opposite party no.2 and initially on 5/3/2016, she was badly beaten up and locked inside the room on 5/3/2016. Initially, the sister of the opposite party no.2 did not disclose the aforesaid incident. On 8/4/2016, the sister of the opposite party no.2 again went to her matrimonial house. Again, the behaviour of the family members of the applicant herein was not good towards the sister of the opposite party no.2 and they told her that her brother has not spent the enough amount of money in the marriage and subsequently it was informed by the sister of the opposite party no.2 that these persons used to demand a further sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 from her and when the demand was not fulfilled they used to torture and assault her.