Dismissed

Amit @ Ahswani and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/24064/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Referred Section 482 CrPC application seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Court held disputed facts preclude quashing. Ordered surrender within 45 days for bail consideration and stayed coercive actions.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants directed to surrender for bail within 45 days; coercive action stayed during this period.

Amit @ Ahswani and 3 Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24064 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Amit @ Ahswani And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 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 Charge-sheet No.68 of 2017 dated 02.09.2017, cognizance order dated 01.04.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.12780 of 2017 (State Vs. Amit @ Ashwani and others) arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Munaffar Nagar, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Sanchi Sharma was solemnized with applicant no.1 Amit @ Ashwani on 20.01.2014. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants started torturing and maltreating her and assaulted her and threatened her for life and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

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.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, charge-sheet, congnizance order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶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, congnizance order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶12

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) .

¶13

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.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Zafar

Amit @ Ahswani and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit @ Ahswani and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Jittan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Kumar Saini and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yujvendra Solanki and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salim Alias Salim Ahmad Warsi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others