Arif Iqbal, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opp party no.2

Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while hearing Case:- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 7731 of 2023, in which Applicant:- Akhtar Ali And 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another, the Counsel for Applicant Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Shamshuddin Khan (S U Khan). Arif Ikbal, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which was taken on record. The present application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.1641 of 222, State Vs. Akhtar Ali and others, arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur as well as charge sheet dated 29.10.2021 along with cognizance order dated 15.12.2022 pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Maudaha, Hamirpur.

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that ends of justice would be served if the applicants are permitted to appear before the court concerned through counsel in terms of Section 228 of the BNSS. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants undertake to ensure presence of their Counsel/Pleader before the court concerned on each date fixed. It is further submitted that the applicants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will participate in the trial court proceedings through the Advocate/Pleader. It is further submitted that the applicants will have no objection in the event the evidence is recorded in the presence of Advocate/Pleader of the applicants.

The applicants are subjected to prosecution for the following offences:-

(i) The applicants are subjected to an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment provided under the aforesaid Section is for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

(ii) The applicants are also subjected to prosecution under Section 323 of I.P.C. and the same is punishable with a term which may extend to one year.

(iii) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Sections 504 and 506 IPC and the same are punishable to two year. The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which is punishable with a term not less than five years.

The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which may extend to two years.

The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute. The applicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Devar. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that there is demand of dowry by the accused persons, the wife was subjected to cruelty in respect of unlawful demand of dowry, there are allegations of assault on accused persons. Learned AGA has not placed any injury report before this court. It is not the case of the State that the applicants have any previous criminal history or the applicants may tamper with the evidence. It has also not been suggested on behalf of opposite party that the applicants would flee away from justice or that applicants have not co-operated at the time of investigation. In marriage, sometimes individuals enter into disharmony which results in friction in matrimonial relationship. Such a disharmony between spouses and their family members arises out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Such a matrimonial dispute even extend to the criminal jurisdiction. The parties to the marriage levy criminal charges against each other to scale up the matrimonial dispute between parties. Sometimes such scaling up of the dispute between parties is at the behest of family members and near ones. In the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations the criminal complaints are lodged. At the time of filing of the complaint, the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations and even the marriage as institution is affected.

Considering the nature of controversy, it is directed that in case application in terms of Section 228 of BNSS is filed by applicants, the court concerned to dispense with the personal attendance of applicants and the applicants be permitted to appear through pleader/counsel subject to the following conditions: The applicants shall appear before the court concerned through counsel on the next date or within 20 days from today whichever is earlier. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated.

The applicants shall execute bond with or without sureties for their appearance to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of Section 91 of BNSS. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated. The applicants shall on affidavit submit their permanent address as well as the current address of residence before the court concerned within 15 days from today. The applicants shall also submit before the court concerned the contact number (if any) of the applicants as well as the e-mail address (if any) of the applicants. The applicants shall also submit an affidavit before the court concerned that they would not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses during the pendency of the trial. The court concerned at any stage of proceeding can direct personal attendance of applicants by order in writing and that if necessary enforce such attendance in accordance with law. It is further provided, where court concerned issues any summon or warrant on account of absence of counsel for applicants before the court concerned or in respect of any other matter, the police authorities shall be obliged under law to execute the summon or warrant and ensure the attendance of the applicants before the court concerned.

Whenever the court concerned directs personal attendance of the applicants before the court concerned, it shall be duty of the applicants to remain present before the court concerned and to ensure that the trial court proceedings are not adjourned on account of absence of the applicants. It shall be the duty of the counsel engaged by applicants to inform the applicants with regard to the progress of the case and, in the event, the personal attendance of the applicants is required. The non-communication by the counsel for the applicants about the progress of the case or the order of the court concerned for personal attendance of the applicants shall not be permissible as defence on behalf of the applicants.

The prosecution/police authority/complainant shall ensure that the witnesses are produced before the court concerned without delay as and when directed by the court concerned.

The court concerned shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the partiesThe court concerned will be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law where the applicants are found to be tampering with the evidence or delaying the trial without any justification.