AWDHESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by Sri Awdhesh Sharma and four others for quashing the charge sheet no.33 of 2014 dated 18.1.2015 as well as order of cognizance of the date, in case crime no.420 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 328 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Maruadih, District Varanasi relating to sessions trial no.138 of 2015, State Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Varanasi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicant no.1 is younger brother of co-accused Paras Nath Sharma and is chacha of his son Virendra Kumar Singh; that the marriage of Virendra Kumar Singh was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 5.5.2011; that on 14.12.2013, F.I.R. of present case has been lodged by opposite party no.2 at case crime no.420 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 328 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act; that father of Virendra Kumar Singh had purchased a plot in District Bhadohi in the name of his wife and after construction of house, is living separately with his family at Bhadohi; that the applicant no.1 is Chachiya Sasur, applicant no.2 is Chachiya Saas, applicant nos.3 and 4 are Dewars and applicant no.5 is unmarried Nanad of opposite party no.2; that opposite party no.2 with false and concocted facts and mala fide intentions has lodged the F.I.R. falsely implicating the applicants and several other members of the family; that it is wrong to say that applicants or any of them used to make any demand of Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry or was treating the opposite party no.2 with cruelty in connection with non fulfillment of demand of dowry or otherwise; that the allegations against the applicant nos.3 and 4 in the F.I.R. of causing her unconscious by injections by applicant no.4 Anil Singh (Dewar) and of attempting to rape her by applicant no.3 Devendra @ Guddu are absolutely wrong; that the husband of opposite party no.2 has filed petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Varanasi on 12.11.2013 numbered as Petition No.1149 of 2013; that upon getting the knowledge of divorce petition, the opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. with inordinate delay on 14.12.2013 for the incidents allegedly taken place on different dates up to 2.12.2013; that there is no injury report on record; that the opposite party no.2 had started living separately with her husband w.e.f. January, 2013 in separate house at plot no.44, Rajpura, Awas Scheme, Phase-II in District Bhadohi from where she left for her maika on 28.6.2013, so the Varanasi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the dispute and the territorial jurisdiction of inquiry and trial may only be of the Courts at Bhadohi in view of provisions of sections 177 and 179 Cr.P.C.; that the F.I.R. has been wrongly lodged at Police Station of District Varanasi; that the applicants and other co-accused filed Writ Petition No.25152 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2013; that opposite party no.2 also filed criminal case no.135 of 2014, under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed as withdrawn; that the statement of opposite party no.2 under section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after a long time; that during investigation several independent witnesses have stated that prosecution version is wrong and incorrect; that the additional charge sheet submitted after further investigation on 18.1.2015 against applicants, suffers from misuse of process of law, upon which, the Magistrate has taken cognizance without application of mind; that no case is made out against the applicants under any of the sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 328 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act; that there is a tendency of falsely roping in the member of entire family in such cases, as has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mahrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 10 ADJ 464; that the applicants are on bail and have never misused the liberty of bail; that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice.