Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019A482/16672/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash charge-sheet and proceedings in matrimonial case alleged under 498A IPC. Court refused quashing, directing surrender within 45 days to enable bail consideration, forbidding coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days; no coercive action during this period.

Rahul and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16672 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 No.166 of 2017 dated 27.07.2017, cognizance order dated 17.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1230 of 2017 (State Vs. Rahul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0418 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Etawah.

¶7

This Court vide its order dated 17.05.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement, however, the applicants had not deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in compliance with the aforesaid order, as such notices were not sent to the parties by the Mediation Centre.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Mandavi was solemnized with applicant no.1 Rahul on 26.04.2012. 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 strangulated her and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

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.

¶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, charge-sheet,

¶11

cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶12

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.

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

¶14

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) .

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Zafar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul and 3 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

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.

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

Arif and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mahesh Chand and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.