Dismissed

Ritesh Kumar Ghai and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018A482/38346/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court considered an application under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. The prayer was dismissed for the first applicant, but bail was granted via regular process upon surrender. For subsequent applicants, a counter-affidavit notice was issued, and coercive action was stayed until listing.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Applicant No.1 granted leave to appear, surrender and apply for bail within 30 days without coercive action; notice issued against Applicants No.2 and 3.

Ritesh Kumar Ghai and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38346 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ritesh Kumar Ghai And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Hans Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hans Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.4.2018 passed by the ACJM, court no.1, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 7384 of 2018(Puja Chawala v. Ritesh and others),under section 498A,323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P.Act, Police Station- M.M. Gate, district-Agra pending in the court of ACJM, court no. 1, Agra.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as family members of the husband-applicant No.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party No.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(1) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely Ritesh Kumar Ghai, is concerned following order is being passed:-

¶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 applicant. 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.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicant no. 1 appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail which ever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned this application is finally disposed off.

¶13

So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following order is being passed :-

¶14

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks.

¶15

Learned AGA prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two weeks thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 2 and 3, in the aforesaid case.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.11.2018

¶19

ssm

Ritesh Kumar Ghai and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Ghai and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Aslam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gautam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Prameshwar Dayal Mishra and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Siddharth Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabana Parveen Vs State of U.P.