Quashed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for dowry cruelty, as facts require judicial trial. Directed that if applicants surrender within 30 days, bail prayer will be considered.
Prayer for quashing dismissed. Application for bail to be considered if applicants surrender within 30 days.
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. - 25
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1871 of 2019
Applicant :- Faizan And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Faizan and 6 others against State of U.P. and complainant Rashida for quashing Complaint Case No. 2411 of 2015 (Rashida Vs. Faizan & others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationMohammadabad, District Mau, pending the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mau, on the ground that the applicants are innocent. They had been falsely implicated in this criminal complain case. Marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the opposite party No. 2 on 18.06.2016 according to Muslim Right and Rituals. Both were residing at their matrimonial house and performing all their duties. No demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it was ever made. After three years of marriage complainant pressurize the applicant No. 1 for their separate living which was not considered and she left her matrimonial house. The opposite party No. 2 namely, Rashida filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate Mau, on 05.11.2015 against the applicants, which was stated as complaint case No. 2711 of 2015. The statements under Section 200 and 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded and summoning order dated 21.11.2016 was passed, without the application of judicial mind. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents, suffering with ailments, applicant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are unmarried brother and sister, who have been falsely implicated, hence this application for quashing this order.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued about the date of leaving from the house of the husband as written in the complaint and the statement of complaint to be of 24.01.2015 whereas PW-1, under Section 202 as 20.01.2015 and routine order has been passed by the Magistrate whereas learned A.G.A for the State argued that there is full corroboration in the complaint version and the statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. There is no material contradiction in the subsequent
statements.
As per law propounded by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , the factual aspect is not to be analyzed by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the averment made in the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it as of 20.01.2015 and ultimately she left house on 24.01.2015. Hence, under above facts and circumstances of the present case, it reveals no ground of interference by this Court under above Section.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 18.1.2019 Kamarjahan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings was maintainable given the lack of factual contradictions in the initial inquiry.
What directions to issue regarding the applicant's surrender for consideration of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Faizan And 6 Others
State Of U.P. And Another
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
