Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2019A482/24479/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment case involving IPC 498A. Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Applicants directed to surrender within 30 days to apply for bail; no coercive action permitted during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

Azad Chandra Bhaskar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24479 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Azad Chandra Bhaskar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava,Om Prakash Verma,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shambhu Nath

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This case was referred for mediation in order to enable the parties to enter into amicable settlement vide order dated 23.7.2018 by this Court. The Mediation centre vide its report dated 12.3.2019 has reported that the parties could not reach at any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.

¶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 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1515 of 2018, State Vs. Azad Chandra Bhaskar and others, arising out of case crime no. 0352 of 2017, under section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Court NO.2, Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.3 has already expired on 16.12.2018 which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

¶9

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R. it is alleged that O.P. No.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 28.2.2008, 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.

¶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

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.

¶12

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 proceeding is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants no.1 and 2 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).

¶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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad Chandra Bhaskar and 2 Others 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

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

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