AJAY KHORANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Applicant Ajay Khorana has prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 10-1-2007 as well as the charge-sheet dated 16-2-2006 filed in Crime No. 1713 of 2005 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I. P. C. pending before C. J. M. Basti against him.

(2.) THE necessary facts eschewing the unnecessarily details of the prosecution allegations are that the applicant was married with respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana on 28th September, 1990 at Bhopal. After the marriage respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana was tortured because of demand of dowry and even was assaulted. Respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana was harassed and was turned out of her in-laws house. She lodged a F. I. R. in respect of offences of demand of dowry and torture with police, which was got investigated and ultimately a charge-sheet was laid in the Court against the applicant and his parents, in the aforesaid crime No. 1713 of 2005 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I. P. C. on 16-2-2006. THE said charge-sheet was registered as case No. 4945 of 2006 in the Court of C. J. M. Basti and the accused persons were summoned. It is this charge-sheet which is being prayed to be quashed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. It is an admitted fact that after the charge-sheet was filed in the Court but before the summoning order was passed the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3808 of 2006, which was dismissed as being premature, since the applicant was not summoned by that dated 13-4-2006. Subsequently after the summoning order was passed on two occasions the applicant approached this Court. Firstly by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8010 of 2007. In the said application the respondent wife appeared through her Counsels to argue the matter. The applicant then got his said application dismissed with liberty to file a fresh on 2-5-2007. The said exercise was repeated again in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9984 of 2007 by those very accused persons including the applicant. After the aforesaid two orders were passed by this Court that this fourth exercise is ventured by the applicant by filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12135 of 2007. In view of the aforesaid facts the experimental exercise resorted to by the applicant Ajay Khorana is nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court. His conduct is utterly deplorable. In this application the Counsel is also the same who was the Counsel in the earlier two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. If the applicant was so confident of the grounds canvassed by him in this application which are not new and different from the grounds taken by him in the earlier two applications, he should have argued his earlier two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. That having not being done it does not understandable how this fourth application is maintainable as the matter was got dismissed without arguing on merits on the earlier two occasions.