Dismissed

Suraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019A482/11016/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings for dowry-related offenses. The bench held that disputed questions of fact precluded quashing at this stage, citing precedents. Applicants were granted thirty days to appear in court and apply for bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; thirty days granted for appearance and bail application without coercive action.

Suraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11016 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.S. Maurya,Shyam Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

List revised. None is present on behalf of the applicants.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the Charge-sheet No.01 of 2017 dated 28.05.2017, cognizance order and summoning order dated 29.07.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.43441 of 2017 (State Vs. Suraj & others) arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Nazeerabad, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

This court vide its order dated 04.04.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre for mediation between the parties and to reach an amicable settlement, however Mediation Centre vide its report dated 18.12.2018 has reported that mediation has been completed and the parties could not arrive at any settlement.

¶9

As per allegations in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Sandhya was solemnized with applicant no.1 Suraj on 28.11.2013. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and turned her out of her matrimonial house.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during course of investigation prima-facie offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶11

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

¶12

made out against the applicants. All the grounds canvassed in the present application relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the impugned orders as well as entire proceedings is refused.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Zafar

Suraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj and 3 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

Chandra Kant Pandey and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Vijay Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Anr.

Zaheer Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Lal and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.