Dismissed

Sageer alias Guddu and 10 others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 May 2018A482/14704/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for dowry harassment cognisable under Sections 498-A IPC, the Court held that disputed facts precluded quashing. However, referring to Rajesh Sharma, the Court directed mediation and deferred coercive action pending discharge applications.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused, but execution of order stayed pending mediation report and decision on discharge applications.

Sageer alias Guddu and 10 others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14704 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sageer Alias Guddu And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha,Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings and non-bailable warrant order dated 17.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puwayan, District - Shahjahanpur, in Case No. 2831 of 2013 (State v. Sageer @ Guddu and others) arising out of charge sheet dated 25.04.2013 submitted in Case Crime No. 946 of 2012, under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Puwayan, Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide and as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶10

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding and N.B.W. order passed in the aforesaid case

¶12

is refused.

¶13

However, as per direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2017 0 AIR (SC) 3869, learned Magistrate is directed to refer the case to committee constituted for mediation at District Court, Shahjahanpur within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶14

The Committee of Mediation Centre shall submit its report within one month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned Magistrate.

¶15

If bail application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be decided according to direction contained in Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra).

¶16

It is further provided that in case applicant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 - Sageer @ Guddu, Rafeeq, Sonu, Lalu, Shanu and Pappu claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in person and applicant nos. 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11 - Smt. Shakeela, Km. Khushnaz, Km. Nasreen, Km. Kiran and Smt. Shahnawaz claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of presentation of discharge application before the court concerned .

¶17

Till the submission of report by the committed of mediation centre, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

¶18

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant nos. 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 7.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Sageer alias Guddu and 10 others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sageer alias Guddu and 10 others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajvir Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Rama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Babu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another