Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA for State; learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available records.

2. The instant Application U/S 528 BNSS filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 11.01.2025 arising out of Case Crime No.147 of 2023, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.904 of 2025, (State versus Ekta Srivastava and others), under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, Police Station Jasrathpur, District Etah, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.22, Etah including the order of cognizance and summoning dated 15.02.2025, by which learned court below summoned the accused applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC and the accused applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC.

5. It is also submitted that the present FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and all the subsequent proceedings based on the said FIR are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. The FIR of both sides relates to incident of same date, place and time of incident.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that at this stage there is nothing to raise any doubt on prosecution version as well as injury and x-ray reports. It is wrong to say that in inquiry conducted by police officials, there is no mention that opposite party no.2 had also suffered injuries in altercation with his wife. It is mentioned in the inquiry report of Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) Etah dated 27.01.2023 that in the night on 01.10.2022 at 09:00 PM at the Government accommodation altercation took place between applicant no.1 (wife) and opposite party no.2 (husband). According the medical papers, the applicant no.1 suffered 21 injuries whereas opposite party no.2 also suffered 5 injuries in his hand. One injury was found grievous in x-ray report. His medico legal examination was done on letter of inquiry produced by police. Both the parties are presenting different versions. According to opposite party no.2 injury received by applicant no.1 is outcome of her frequent dashing on frame of window, whereas according to her version injury was caused by rod by the opposite party no.2. The applicant No.1 was sent to Primary Health Centre for her medical examination. The opposite party no.2 was suspended by order dated 04.10.2022. He next submitted that the FIR of applicant no.1 is highly belated and outcome of after thought. The opposite party no.2 conceded that the applicant no.1 had not stolen anything from his home and whatever she took away was her streedhan. He next submitted that a bare perusal of FIR version and supported by medical evidence makes out a prima-facie case under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC and the criminal proceedings are not liable to be quashed or set aside as prayed by the applicants. Opposite party no.2 has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 04.01.2203 which is pending before the Family Court. The applicant No.1 assaulted the opposite party No.2 by stick due to which uhe suffered injuries. The witnesses have supported FIR version in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

(x) During pendency of aforesaid criminal complaint, the opposite party filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.22, Etah with similar allegations against present applicants and on the basis of order passed by the court an FIR was lodged against the applicants vide Case Crime No. 147 of 2023 under Sections 323, 379, 325, and 506 IPC, on 24.11.2023. The police during investigation charge of theft was not substantiated and chargesheet was filed against the present applicants under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC which has been assailed through present application under Section 528 BNSS.

13. Thus, there appears to be a case of blatant false allegations with regard to charge of theft against the applicants. There is no specific allegation that out of five accused persons in the present case who had hurled threat to opposite party No.2 that they will implicate him in false case. The applicant No.1 has been chargesheeted for charge under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC, and other applicants are chargesheet under Section 506 IPC. Applicants No.3 and 4 are relatives of applicant No.1 and residents of Varanasi.