Referred application to Mediation Centre. Mediation failed. Refused quashing as prima facie offence is made out. Directors surrender within 45 days for bail consideration. No coercive action during this period.
Quashing refused; applicants directed to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration; no coercive action during said period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16929 of 2018
Applicant :- Chetan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukhtar Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratap Narain Gangwar
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1579 of 2017 (State Vs. Chetan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.524 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly.
This Court vide its order dated 15.05.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement.
The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 29.08.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and mediation has failed.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Pinki Gangwar was solemnized with applicant no.1 Chetan on 30.05.2018. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for nonfulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and committed cruelty with her and got her child aborted. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home.
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.
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, the entire
proceedings cannot be quashed.
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.
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 entire proceedings is refused.
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) .
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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Zafar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case involving dowry allegations where no offence is prima facie made out.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶14
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶14
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶14
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶14
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chetan And 2 Others
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
