Dismissed

Ankit Tomar and 4 Otehrs v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2019A482/23556/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from allegations of dowry harassment and other offences. Court refused quashing noting that factual disputes at that stage preclude such relief. Directions given for bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet refused; no coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Ankit Tomar and 4 Otehrs Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23556 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Tomar And 4 Otehrs Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Shyam Shanker Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Vinay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

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.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the charge sheet dated 13.4.2018, arising out of case crime no. 05 of 2018, under section 498A, 323, 376 I.P.C.and 3/4 of D.P. Act. P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Baghpat.

¶8

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the sister of 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 also assaulted her and has also turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within thirty days

¶13

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).

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 15.11.2019 R

Ankit Tomar and 4 Otehrs v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Tomar and 4 Otehrs 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

Jyoti Vs Sudheer Kumar and 2 Others

Amit Prasad @ Satyanand Vs State of U.P.

Anjan Ali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Barkha Sareen and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azad Chandra Bhaskar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaisar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another