Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/16367/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court rejected an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge-sheet regarding allegations of dowry harassment. The court held prima facie offence was made out and prayer refused but granted a 30-day protection from coercive action pending bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge-sheet dismissed; 30-day stay on coercive action granted subject to surrender and bail application.

Arvind Kumar Saini and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16367 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Saini And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None is present for the applicants to press this application, however learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 is present.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 15.12.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2114 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind and others), arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 09.05.2018 has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement, however, Mediation Centre vide its report dated 13.09.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 16.02.2016, 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 she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 chargesheet as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within 30 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 30 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Nadim

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Saini and 4 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

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 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

Alham Siddki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Maya Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another