Disposed

Saurabh Srivastava and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019A482/12205/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of summons in a dowry harassment case. The court held that disputed facts preclude quashing. Applicants were ordered to surrender within 45 days to avail of bail; else coercive action would follow.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused but liberty given to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration; no coercive action during this period.

Saurabh Srivastava and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12205 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the summoning order dated 25.04.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2514 of 2015 (Surendra Lal Srivastav Vs. Saurabh Srivastava & others), under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending before the court of learned A..J.M., Court No.6, Varanasi.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of daughter of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 Saurabh Srivastava on 20.11.2011. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants started physically and mentally torturing and maltreating her and assaulted her. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

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. 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

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 summoning order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within forty five 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) .

¶13

For a period of forty five 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.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Zafar

Saurabh Srivastava and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Srivastava and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Puneet Kumar Dubey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ram Payari and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit @ Ahswani and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Nana Saheb Gadey Alias Maratha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another