HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant Shri Harish Chandra and in opposition learned Additional Government Advocate Shri G.P. Singh and perused the record.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been moved on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.07.2013 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3332 of 2013 ( State v. Ashwani Kumar and others ), arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2013, under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Ghaziabad.

(3.) Contention raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicants that the main accused in this case, namely, Ashwani, who is husband of daughter of opposite party no. 2, Harpal Singh, father-in-law (applicant no. 1), Rajkumari, mother-in-law (applicant no. 2), have already been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3332 of 2013 ( State v. Ashwani Kumar and others ), under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. It is further argued that the present application under Section 482 of the Code was moved from the side of father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as two jeths (brothers-in-law) and jethanis (sisters-in-law) of the victim and vide order dated 06.12.2013, the proceedings of the criminal case were refused to be quashed against the accused-applicants nos. 1 and 2, viz. Harpal Singh and Rajkumari, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the victim, while against accused-applicant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, viz. Haixe, Manoj (brothers-in-law), Smt. Seema and Smt. Rekha (sisters-in-law) of the victim and this Court had granted interim stay. It is further argued that subsequently, the daughter of opposite party no. 2 and her husband have taken mutual divorce. Certified copy of the decree order of the said divorce has been annexed with supplementary affidavit. It is further argued that the remaining accused viz. applicant nos. 3 to 6, who are the two jeths and jethanis of the victim, were living separately from the co-accused and have no role in the present case. They have been falsely implicated and learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has prayed that the proceedings against them may be quashed as no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending against them.