NUSHRAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Ranvijay Chaubey and in opposition, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 13.02.2019, the cognisance/summoning order dated 15.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 149 of 2019 (State v. Nasrat), arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Ratanpuri, District - Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that accused-applicant that accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by opposite party no. 3 by lodging false F.I.R. against him. Opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the accused-applicant. Both are Muslims and in Muslims, more than one marriage is permissible. It is further argued that on the date when she is said to have been taken away from the house, she was present at Allahabad High Court Photo Affidavit Centre, a proof thereof is annexed at Page No. 23 of the Paper Book. It is further argued that the said proof clearly shows that the present case has been falsely lodged against the applicant. It is further argued that the present applicant had appeared before this Court and filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3626 of 2018 (Nusrat Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and 10 Others) after the victim had been forcibly taken away by her parents. In the order dated 02.10.2018 passed in the said writ petition, which is annexed at Page No. 33 of the Paper Book, it is mentioned that the accused-applicant had married opposite party no. 2 by concealing this fact that he was already married and was having seven children. Pointing out this order, it is argued that since both the parties are Muslim, it cannot be denied that opposite party no. 2 was having full knowledge, being of the same community, that accused-applicant was already married and was having seven children. There was no concealment on his part. Hence, the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. would not be made out against the accused-applicant. The Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and has filed charge-sheet in a routine manner and hence, the present proceedings need to be quashed, the same being malicious prosecution.