Dismissed

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019A482/14927/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in a dowry harassment case, holding that disputed facts require trial. It directed the applicants to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration and barred coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicants granted 45 days to surrender for bail consideration; no coercive action permitted if they surrender.

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14927 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anand Kumar Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Mishra,Neeraj Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.02.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 10791 of 2018 (State Vs. Anand Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0362 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 27.11.2009, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started making demand of additional dowry from the Opposite Party No.2 and for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, they used to torture her, maltreat her and assault her and also committed cruelty with her and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

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 made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima

¶11

facie case is to be seen in the light 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within 45 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).

¶14

For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Nadim

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 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

Jay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh @Kalu and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Annapurna Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another