SANGITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Nisaruddin, learned Counsel for the appli cants, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the record it appears that interim order dated 23. 5. 2008 was passed by this Court by which this matter was sent to Mediation Centre but subsequently the application dated 18. 6. 2008 has been moved by learned Counsel for the applicants that this matter may not be sent to the Mediation centre because it is not re lated to any matrimonial dispute.

(3.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Smt. Vijaylaxmi @ Poonam on 17. 4. 2007 at P. S. Naubasta in case crime No. 226 of 2007 under sections 420, 445, 448, 469, 471, 193, 211, 500 and 120-B IPC against the appli cants and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the O. P. No. 2 was solemnized on 14. 5. 2003 with co-accused Subhas Verma, thereafter she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws, this case was also lodged against them which is pending in the Court. In the counter blast the applicant and other co-accused persons made an allegation that she had performed the marriage with one Bhanu Pratap Singh on 20. 2. 2001 whereas she was not married with Bhanu Pratap Singh. THE applicant and other co-accused person had sent a notice containing a false allegation to O. P. No. 2 and on the basis of that allegation a suit has been filed, they have also prepared a forged document in cluding the compromise deed which have been filed in the Court and its publication has been made at their instance on 26. 1. 2007 in a daily Dainik Jagran Newspa per. THE matter was investigated by the I. O. Who submitted the charge-sheet dated 24. 3. 2008 against the applicant and other co-accused persons by which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cogni zance on 11. 4. 2008. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that they have no concerned with the alleged incident. THE applicant No. 1 Smt. Sangeeta Singh had lodged an FIR against O. P. No. 2 and others in case crime No. 110 of 2004 under sections 498, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act at P. S. Kakadev, District Kanpur and she had filed an appli cation against her husband Satyaveer Singh under section 125 Cr. P. C. In its counter blast the applicant No. 1 Sangeeta Singh and her brother applicant No. 2 Amar Singh have been falsely implicated in the present case. THE applicants have not committed any forgery and they have not file any forged documents in the Court and the applicants are having no concerned in any publication in daily Dainik Jagran newspaper. Bhanu Pratap Singh had filed a case No. 9645 of 2006 against O. P. No. 2 and Subhas Verma who is first husband of O. P. No. 2 under sections 494 and 498 IPC. THEre is dispute between the parties but for the purpose of harassment of the applicants the allegation have been made against them. It is surprising that without doing the fair investigation the I. O. had submit ted the charge-sheet against the applicant also on which without perusing the police report the learned Magistrate concerned had illegally taken the cognizance. It is further contended that even on the basis of the allegation made against the applicants no offence is made out. In such circum stances the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants may be quashed.