Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/1274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in a domestic assault case, the court refused the quashing prayer as facts were disputed. However, it granted a 30-day stay on coercive action if specific applicants surrender and apply for bail, referencing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Puneet Kumar Dubey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1274 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Dubey And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Mukesh Kumar,Sushant Misra

¶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 impugned charge-sheet dated 23.09.2017, cognizance order dated 07.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1133 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.253 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 494, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of F.T.C./J.D., Farrukhabad.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 29.01.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre to enable the parties reach to an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 24.07.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and mediation has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of daughter of Opposite Party No.2 Ankita was solemnized with applicant no.1 Puneet Kumar Dubey on 20.05.2013. 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 committed cruelty with her and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶10

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant nos.2 to 7 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.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly

¶12

made out against the applicant nos.2 to 7 and as such, chargesheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶13

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 nos.2 to 7. 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.

¶14

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 charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that if the applicant nos.2 to 7 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) .

¶16

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicant nos.2 to 7 surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos.2 to 7. However, in case, the applicant nos.2 to 7 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Zafar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Kumar Dubey and 6 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

Jittan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Kumar Saini and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yujvendra Solanki and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salim Alias Salim Ahmad Warsi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others