Partly allowed

Smt. Rani and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018A482/5099/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC alleging dowry harassment. While refusing the quash prayer, the court allowed the applicants 30 days to surrender and apply for bail to which a cooling-off period would be granted.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused. Relief on condition to appear, surrender and apply for bail within 30 days granted.

Smt. Rani and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5099 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rani And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh has filed Supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 979 of 2017 (State Vs. Saeeda and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) C-1/A.C.J.M., Bijnor.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicant no. 1- Smt. Rani is Jethani of the opposite party no. 2 while accused-applicant no. 2- Bundu is father-inlaw of the opposite party no. 2. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No harassment or torture was given to the opposite party no. 2 for demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, as alleged in the FIR. Accused-applicant no. 2 cannot be a beneficiary of any demand of dowry. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are living separately. The present case is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, hence, proceedings need to be quashed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that the opposite party no. 2 was being harassed for demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and a car and for non-fulfilment of the same, she was forcibly administered poison by the accused-applicants along with other accused. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet under the aforementioned Sections. Evidence gathered by police, during investigation, cannot be dis-believed at this stage. On the basis of evidence, cognizable offence is made out against the accused-applicants. There is no ground made out for quashing the charge sheet.

¶10

Therefore, prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and

¶12

surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 6.3.2018 A.P. Pandey

Smt. Rani and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani and Anr. 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

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta Alias Reeta Vs State of U.P.

Kalyan Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Singh Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pradeep Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.