Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019A482/15531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash criminal proceedings involving dowry harassment allegations under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as disputed facts existed. The application was disposed of with directions to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration and assurance against coercive action.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and entire proceedings was refused. Applicants directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.

Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15531 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dur Vijay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Raj Bahadur Verma, 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 11.01.2018 and quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.44 of 2018 (State Vs. Sayeed Uddin Faridi and others) arising out of Crime No.0213 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Room No.14, Farrukhabad.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 04.05.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre so that the parties make an attempt for reconciliation of their differences.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 13.11.2018 has reported that mediation has been completed and the parties could not reach to any agreement.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Faria Khan was solemnized with applicant no.3 Zoheb Faridi @ Sani on 11.11.2012. 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

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.

¶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 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.

¶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 order 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam 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

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

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

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

Ajay Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.