Dismissed

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019A482/31351/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A and others IPC alleging false implication and compromise. The Single Judge held that disputed factual defenses regarding innocence and compromise cannot be adjudicated at the Stage of quashing applications. Since a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, the prayer was refused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused; applicants given 30 days to appear for bail consideration without coercive action during that period.

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31351 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Siddheshwar Banerjee And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Chandani Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the entire proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 26.09.2012 in Case Crime No. 321 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., IIIrd Varanasi.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated; compromise has taken place between the accused applicants and the O.P. No.2, therefore, proceedings need to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated that if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to an abuse of process of court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and has pointed out that no compromise has been found to have been annexed.

¶9

Perused the F.I.R.

¶10

It is apparent that in the F.I.R. demand of dowry is alleged to have been made by the applicants side and due to the nonfulfilment of the same, abusing, beating and threatening to kill are the allegations levelled against the accused applicants by the O.P. No.2, therefore, same constitutes cognizable offence.

¶11

The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. All the

¶13

submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶14

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 A. Mandhani

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. 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

Brijesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu Mishra Alias Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Laxmina Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Another

Vijay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another