MOHD. PARVEZ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jas Ram Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharm Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.6250 of 2017 (State v. Mohd. Parvez and others) arising out of Case Crime No.543 of 2017 under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act as well as Charge Sheet No.189 of 2017, dated 4.12.2017, Police Station Sikandrapur, District Ballia pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicant is false and fabricated; no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He further submits that according to the version of FIR, applicant committed cruelty for demand of dowry and also committed marpit with daughter of opposite party No.2 but no medical examination report has been submitted before I.O. by complainant/opposite party No.2. He further submits that neither the applicant and his family members have committed marpit nor demanded any kind of dowry from the daughter of opposite party No.2. He further submits that neither opposite party No.2 has been medically examined nor any medical report is available on record. He further submits that without collecting any credible evidence, only on the basis of oral statements of opposite party No.2/complainant and victim, charge sheet has been submitted by Investigating Officer. Thereafter, learned court below without applying his judicious mind, passed the cognizance order against the applicant, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.