NAVEEN KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 the 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 applicants submitted that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. the marriage between applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 has been solemnized in the year 2007 and immediately after the marriage both of them went to U.S.A. where the applicant no. 1 was employed and out of the said wedlock two children were also born. Till the year 2014 there was not a single allegation of demand of dowry even during the marriage or post marriage against the applicants herein and there was no question of any harassment on the part of the applicants herein. It is further submitted that after the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 returned back from U.S.A. to India flats were purchased in NOIDA in the joint name of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, which itself clarifies the cordial relations and trust between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that during their stay at U.S.A. the applicant no. 1 on his own expenses has called the parents of the opposite party no. 2 and borne all the expenses. After they returned from USA and started living in NOIDA, the allegations have been made only because of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 suspected relationship of the applicant no. 1 with one Neha, who has also been made an accused in the instant case, with whom it is alleged that the applicant no. 1 was in the talking terms and used to have long conversation although the said Neha was the classmate of the applicant no. 1 and was his old friend and on the basis of the aforesaid suspicion the instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 making a concocted story of demand of dowry of SUV Car by the applicants herein. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that the person who has purchased the flats in NOIDA in the joint name with opposite party and has also incurred expenses of the visit and stay of the parents of the opposite party no. 2 at USA could not have demanded the SUV Car as has been alleged in the FIR. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, submitted that the instant case is nothing but a malicious case due to some other reason other than demand of dowry etc, therefore, the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and sec. 498-A I.P.C. would not apply in the instant case and no offence, whatsoever is made out against the applicants herein.