NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ahmad Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.05.2013 as well as entire proceedings in Case No.3903 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2013, under sections 504, 406, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

(3.) The prosecution case as narrated in the FIR is that the opposite party no. 2, Munsab Ali had fixed marriage of his daughter to be solemnized with the accused applicant no.1, Noor Mohammad and at the time of engagement worth Rs.one lac was spent which comprise Rs.50,000/- in cash and other articles such as golden ring etc. After the fixation of the date for marriage, the accused-applicants came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 on 26.11.2012 and started demand of one Maruti Van to which the opposite party no. 2 stated that he was not capable to meet the said demand. Thereafter the applicant no.1, Noor Mohammad, Daud, applicant no.4, Taufiq, applicant no.6, Smt. Nazarul Nisha, applicant no.2 and Kaushar Ali, applicant no.3 had said that the accused-applicant no. 1 would not marry his daughter and also started abusing. When the opposite party no. 2 demanded money which was spent at the time of engagement, they also stated that no amount would be returned to him. It was also stated from the side of the accused-applicant that opposite party no. 2 should quietly go away otherwise he would be killed. At the raising of alarm by the opposite party no.2, the witnesses who were in the nearby places also came there, who have witnessed the occurrence and tried to intervene and bring out a compromise but the accused-applicants would not agree to marry the daughter of the opposite party no.2. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 went to Police Station to lodge report but the same was not registered and he was pressurized that he should enter into a compromise. Thereafter Case Crime no. 38 of 2013, under sections 504, 406, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly on 24.3.2013 at 4.30 hours. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused-applicants under the above-mentioned sections.