Dismissed

Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh and Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018A482/25904/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet alleging offences under Section 498-A, 506, and other IPC sections for dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that allegations were supported by the victim's statement and no grounds for quashment existed, though bail was directed as a concession.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Bail application to be considered if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh and Others Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25904 of 2008

¶3

Applicant :- Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶6

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet no.57 of 2008 dated 10.5.2008, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 294 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur.

¶7

It is submission of learned counsel for the applicants that mediation between the parties failed on account of laches on behalf of opposite party no.2 as she did not take part in the mediation. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that marriage took place on 6.6.2004, whereas Gauna took place in June, 2005. The opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial home in the year 2007 and a notice dated 1.10.2007 was sent to the opposite party no.2 and after that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved before magistrate court on 1.3.2008 wherein the allegation against sister-in-law was also made. In the mean time, an application dated 8.4.2008 was moved before District Magistrate and on the basis of that application, an FIR was lodged against the applicants. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that in application dated 8.4.2008, the allegation against sister-in-law, namely, Pritama Singh was not made. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that allegation made against the applicants are false and fabricated one and allegation only made after notices are being given to the opposite party no.2. It is further contention of learned

¶8

counsel for the applicants that charges under Section 294 I.P.C. is also not made out

¶9

So far notice to opposite party no.2 is concerned that cannot be a bar for initiating the criminal case. In case an incident has happened prior to the notice and proceeding is initiated only after notice cannot be said to be after thought and prayed relief cannot be given merely on that ground. Similarly, in case allegation is being made against sister-in-law and same is not being mentioned in the FIR, then it cannot be said that allegation made against the applicants are false and fabricated one.

¶10

This Court is constraint to make any observation regarding the making of charge under Section 294 of I.P.C. and all the facts that are being contended before this Court can only be decided when evidence is being produced before the trial court concerned and all the facts that are contended before this Court are the disputed question of fact and same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants that case of parents is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 , but this Court is of the view that case of the parents is not specifically covered and it is to be seen what allegations are made against them and same are being supported by the evidence, if so then proceeding against them can be drawn. The allegation made in the FIR is being supported by the opposite party no.2 in her statement during investigation, accordingly, it cannot be said that allegation made against the applicants are false and fabricated one.

¶12

Consequently, this Court does not find any ground for

¶13

indulgence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P .

¶15

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 Ajeet

Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh and Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh and Others v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Girish Mohan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayodhya Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another