Held that the charge sheet could not be quashed as disputed questions of fact were involved. Applicants were directed to surrender within 30 days to avail bail; otherwise coercive action would follow.
Quashing of charge sheet refused. Direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; coercive action barred during this 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. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23311 of 2018
Applicant :- Kaisar And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Abhishek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Dubey,Rajesh Shukla
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
This case was referred for mediation in order to enable the parties to enter into amicable settlement vide order dated 19.7.2018 by this Court. The Mediation centre vide its report dated 7.2.2019 has reported that the parties could not reach at any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and 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 charge sheet daed 2.4.2018, arising out of case crime no. 1051 of 2017, under section 498A, 354 (B), 377, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. P.S. Kairana, District Shamli pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Shamli.
As per the allegation made in the complaint. it is alleged that O.P. No.2 was married to applicant no.1, however, after marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants used to torture and maltreat her and has also turned her out of her matrimonial home and also assaulted her due to which she suffered injuries on her person and has been medically examined.
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.
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 charge sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/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 judgement 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 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet arising out of offences under sections 498A, 354(B), 377 IPC etc. should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the disputed questions of fact regarding dowry harassment can be adjudicated by this Court at this stage
Whether directions for non-coercive action during a specific period for bail surrender should be issued
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶11
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¶11
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¶13
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kaisar And 3 Ors
State of U.P.
Another
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
