PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 23.12.2017, whereby discharge application dated 8.9.2017 of the petitioner has been rejected by A.C.J.M. Court no.5 Moradabad in case no. 1260 of 2017 (computer case no. 10231 of 2017) (State Vs. Pramod Kumar) arising out of case crime no.52 of 2017 as well as cognizance order dated 11.7.2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.2 making general allegations. No specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. There is contradiction in the statement of respondent no.2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In this case respondent no.2 Babita was not medically examined.The Investigating Officer without conducting the fair investigation submitted the charge-sheet. The discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected by the court below without applying the judicial mind. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized without any demand of dowry. Neither petitioner nor his family members have tortured or harassed the respondent no.2 in any manner. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner just to create the pressure by the opposite party no.2 to live separately. No offence under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the petitioner.