Dismissed

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019A482/32949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for dowry harassment. Mediation failed. Court refused quash as dispute is of fact, not legal. Granted 30-day non-coercive period for surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day period granted no coercive action for surrender and bail application.

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32949 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Charan Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 summoning order dated 16.07.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2392 of 2018 (Smt. Soni Vs. Sonu @ Charan Singh and others) arising out of Crime No.0213 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. C. B. Ganj, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.04, Bareilly.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 19.09.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to enter into an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 03.01.2019 has reported that the mediation has been completed and the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and the same has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Soni was solemnized with applicant no.1 Sonu @ Charan Singh on 11.05.2013. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for nonfulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and assaulted her and 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

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material

¶12

collected during the course of eqnuiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 impugned order as well as entire proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and 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 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) .

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 Zafar

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Charan Singh 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

Shri Sandeep Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar @ Mantri and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibrahim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another