Allahabad High Court
Amir Ali And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23350 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8986 of 2024 Applicant :- Amir Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Govind Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Shri Ramapati Tiwari (Advocate Roll- A/R 8986/2024), Advocate holding brief of Shri Govind Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants, who are two in number, Shri S.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent and Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2 and there happens to be a supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have made a statement at the bar that they do not propose to file any further response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
4. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
5. This application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Charge sheet dated 10-12-2021 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act., on which Cognizance has been taken by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act., Kanpur Nagar on 14-12-2021, as well as entire Criminal Proceedings in Session Case No. 1649 of 2021 (State of U.P. versus Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0755 of 2021, Police Station Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar (West Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar).
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a First Information Report stood lodged against the applicants who are two in number and one Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg by opposite party No.2 on 13.09.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 416, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, relatable to the commission of the offence whereby the accused Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg, who is not the applicant herein, had concealed the factum that he belonged to another religion and got an interfaith marriage solemnized with opposite party No.2 and accidentally opposite party No.2 came across the identity card wherein for the very first time she came to know that Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg does not belong to the religion which opposite party No.2 belongs and thereafter when she made queries then the said Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg avoided to give a reply and thereafter went away and even his phone was found to be switched off and later, opposite party No.2 came to know that he had already married.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegation against the applicants are that the applicant No.1 happens to be younger brother and applicant No.2 to be brother-in-law and as per the narration contained in the F.I.R., they in handed gloves with Deepak @ Adil Ali are resorting to such type of practice which is prohibited by law. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent in this regard particularly, in view of the fact that there is no allegation regarding fact that the applicants along with Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg got the marriage solemnized either in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants has also invited the attention of the Court towards page No. 16 of the counter affidavit so as to contend that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., improvements have been sought to be made that the applicants attempted to outrage the modesty of opposite party No.2.
8. Learned counsel for the applicantd submits that the charge-sheet stood submitted while adding Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act along with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 193, 120-B IPC.
9. Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that offences are made out particularly, in view of the fact that it is highly improper and not acceptable that a marriage be solemnized while keeping a person in dark while not disclosing the religion. He further submits that though the allegations about outraging the modesty while touching opposite party No. 2 and while doing indecent act of stripping of opposite party No. 2 do not find place in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the F.I.R. but it has come on record by the way of deposition of P.W. No. 1, victim. He submits that offenses are made out.
10. Learned AGA on the other hand could not dispute the fact that there is no specific allegation of outraging the modesty or stripping of opposite party No.2 present in the F.I.R. or statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully, apparently the entire allegation centers around Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg regarding non-disclosure of his religion and getting the marriage done despite the fact that he was already married. The only allegation in the F.I.R. and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is relatable to the fact that they were the part and the parcel and they were witness to the marriage as applicant No.1 happens to be younger brother and applicant No.2 to be brother-in-law. The attempts so sought to be made for outraging the modesty does not find place even in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the F.I.R. though the vital witness who had seen the said occurrence regarding commission of crime was opposite party No.2. Plainly and simply, it is nothing but a case of exaggeration.
12. Considering the fact that there is no specific role attributable to commission of offence against applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be conclude against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2.
13. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
14. The proceedings against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 only in Session Case No. 1649 of 2021 (State of U.P. versus Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0755 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar (West Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar) is hereby quashed.
15. However, so far as Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg is concerned, he will not be covered by this order and proceedings as per law shall go on.
16. Needless to point out that fate of the deposit of compensation to the District Social Welfare Officer shall be subject to the outcome of trial against Deepak @ Adil Ali Beg.
Order Date :- 18.2.2025 K.K.Tiwari