Vinod Prasad, J.:— Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A
2. The order dated 20.9.2005 indicates that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Ram Sakhi has been served with notices. However, she has not been filed any counter affidavit till date. By the order-dated 2.2.2006 passed by this Court (Hon'ble Shiv Shankar, J.), the opportunity to file counter affidavit has been closed. Therefore, the present application is being heard finally.
3. The applicant has challenged the proceedings of complaint case No. 3666/2004, under sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Jhansi, which has been initiated by respondent No. 2 Ram Sakiri. The present applicant is the father-in-law of respondent No. 2 Smt. Ram Sakhi the complainant. The perusal of the complainant indicates that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Ram Sahki was married on 19.2.2000 with accused Ramji Lal. In the marriage, her parents, and other relatives had given a dowry of Rupees one lac and other articles, but in-laws were not happy with the aforesaid articles and they were demanding a colour T.V and Rajdoot Motorcycle. Because of the aforesaid demand they used to torture, physically as well as mentally, the complainant and they were also threatening her that they will marry her husband at another place. When the complainant was in a family way then the accused in the complaint who are seven in number, turned her out of her matrimonial home. On 21.11.2001 the complainant was blessed with a son in her father's house, who is living with her. The complainant had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C against her husband claiming maintenance for herself as well as her son which is still pending in the Family Court at Jhansi. On 13.9.2004 at 3.00 P.M the complainant was belaboured by her in laws and other accused persons and was abused filthy because of the non-fulfillment of the dowry. The complainant went to the police station to lodge a report, which is not taken down. Consequently, she filed a complaint dated 27.9.2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Jhansi. The complainant was examined and the Trial Court vide order dated 26.6.2005 summoned the present applicant as well as Ramji Lal, Anil, Smt. Sabbi, Dharmendra and Sangeeta for offences under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order the present applicant Gaya Prasad, has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9779 of 2005 with the prayer to quash of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case No. 3666 of 2004, Smt. Ram Sakhi v. Ramji Lal, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Court No. 9, Jhansi. From the perusal of the complaint as well as summoning order it cannot be said that no offence under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC is made out against the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that on the date of the incident i.e 30.9.2004 the applicant was not present at the spot and was on his duty in Nagar Palika, Orai. In support of this contention, he has filed a document issued by executive officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Orai. The said document is a certificate issued by the Executive Officer Nagar Palika, Orai that the applicant along with coaccused Sumita, who is his wife was present at Orai on duty in Nagar Palika Parishad, Orai. Learned A.G.A on the other hand contended that this is the alibi of the applicant which is to be decided at the evidence stage. At this stage the alibi cannot be taken to be established and moreover from the perusal of the complaint an offence is squarely made out against the applicant.
4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the merits of the matter it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the present applicant, who is the father-in-law, for the offences for which he has been summoned. At this stage, it is not for this Court to record a finding of acceptance of alibi without evidence being led in the case.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application which deserves to be dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not prejudice the right of the applicant to claim discharge at the appropriate stage through a proper application. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not on bail. In this view of the matter, it is directed that if the applicant appears or surrenders before the Trial Court on or before 17.4.2006 and makes an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed it off as expeditiously as possible, if possible on the same day after giving opportunity to the other side.
6. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed. Stay order granted on 27.7.2007 is hereby vacated. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Trial Court within a week from today.
7. Appeal Dismissed.