Dismissed

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019A482/19165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi HC dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons and criminal proceedings in a dowry case as disputed questions of fact prevented adjudication at this stage, denying quash to prevent harassment.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing summoning order and criminal proceedings refused; bail to be considered if applicants surrender and apply within 45 days without coercive action.

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19165 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Sujit Kumar Tripathi

¶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 summoning order dated 12.06.2017 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.3342 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Shivkuti, District Allahabad, pending before the Court of Spl. C.J.M., Allahabad.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 01.06.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 04.12.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach at any amicable settlement and mediation has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.3 Smt. Bindu Devi was solemnized with son of applicant no.1 Ashutosh Kumar Shukla on 04.05.2001. 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 committed cruelty with her. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶10

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.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, summoning

¶12

order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 summoning order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶15

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) .

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Zafar

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Rajpal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mukesh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Jamaluddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedpal Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satya Narayan Vs State of U.P.