Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25976 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38353 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.3.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 245 of 2024, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Barra, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against her brother-in-law (Devar) and mother-in-law on 17.5.2024 at 7:00 O'clock in the evening with the allegation that on 13.5.2024 the opposite party no. 2 was called upon along with her both the sons at the residence in Faizabad after forty days of her father-in-law's death. It was also informed that the entire family will be there to perform the rituals of death of her father-in-law, wherein they will also pursue 'snan' in Saryu river. After completion of ceremonies when the opposite party no.2 reached the house at Faizabad the applicant no. 1 Amit (devar) at about 11:00 O'clock in the night came inaberated state and having bad intention tried to catch hold the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 pushed her devar and went outside the room. He entered her room and started abusing her and tried to outraged her modesty. He also tried to torn her cloths and when the opposite party no. 2 objected the same then the applicant no. 1 given live threat to her and her sons, if she demands share in the house. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that upon hearing the alarm raised by opposite party no. 2, her elder son Priyansh and younger brother-in-law (devar) rushed and intervened and saved her. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the applicants told her to return her parental home and bring the money as demanded and thereafter they thrown out her along with her sons out of house. The police personnel reached there and she was safely rushed to bus station at about 12:00 O'clock in the night. After completion of investigation the chargesheet has been filed against the applicants on 13.6.2024 and they have been summoned by order dated 7.9.2024 and cognizance have been taken against the applicant no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and against applicant no. 2 under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present FIR has been lodged against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations regarding harassment of the victim for property dispute to extraneous from the applicants. Though in the FIR, the date of incident is mentioned as 13.5.2024, however in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 has changed the date of incident as 14.5.2024, which creates doubt in the story and the allegation made by opposite party no. 2. Placing the injury report of injured/opposite party no. 2 Sarita Singh dated 20.5.2024, learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no mention regarding the incident of 13.5.2024. The injury report also shows that the injury has been caused by hard and blunt object, whereas there is no allegation in this regard in the FIR. As per injury report the injury no. 1 is said to the one day old and injury no. 2 appears to be healed. The injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and old healed. Comment is not possible as regards the period when the injury was caused, therefore, the allegation regarding assault is not proved. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Musheer Alam vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024, wherein the Apex Court has held that once the chargesheet has been submitted and the Court has taken cognizance of the same, there is no reason of arresting the accused. The accused should be asked to appear before the court concerned to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR as well as the chargesheet, the offence under relevant sections is made out against the applicants. As regards the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicants, the same is not applicable in the present case as the present case involved matrimonial dispute for quashing of the chargesheet in matrimonial cases, whereas the case relied upon is with respect to the effect of fair investigation. The investigation has been completed after anticipatory bail application has been denied to the applicant in an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, I find that there is no justification for quashing the proceeding of the aforementioned case. The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad