Dismissed

Chandra Kant Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019A482/18913/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings in a domestic violence case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding that disputed questions of fact precluded interference. The court quashed the mediation report and granted a 30-day moratorium on coercive action pending surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted pending surrender for bail.

Chandra Kant Pandey and another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18913 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Kant Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Yadav,Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Singh Sengar

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

List revised. None is present on behalf of the applicants.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 10.11.2017, cognizance order and summoning order dated 18.01.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.150 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Kant Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No.1283 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia.

¶8

This court vide its order dated 28.05.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to make an attempt for reconciliation of their differences. However, pursuant to the said order dated 28.05.2018, the Mediation Centre has submitted its report on 19.09.2018 and reported that the parties have not been able to amicably settle the matter and the efforts for mediation has failed.

¶9

As per allegations in the FIR, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 Annu Pandey is the wife of applicant no.1 Chandra Kant Pandey and their marriage was solemnized on 22.04.2016. 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 even assaulted her and turned her out of her matrimonial house.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during course of investigation prima-facie offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶11

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the

¶12

facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the grounds canvassed in the present application relates 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 orders 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 :- 5.11.2019 Zafar

Chandra Kant Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kant Pandey and another 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

Preet Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arvind Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ballu @ Rajesh Kumar 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

Rohit Bishnoi and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Anr.