Dismissed

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019A482/34517/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge quashed a Section 482 CrPC petition seeking to quash a charge sheet alleging a dowry dispute. The court held that factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Petitioners were granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the charge sheet was refused. A 30-day moratorium on coercive action was granted contingent upon appearance for bail.

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34517 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shankar Lal Kandora And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tripathi,Swatantra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Sharma,Saksham Srivastava,Akhilesh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the ChargeSheet dated 21.02.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2036 of 2018 (State Vs. Shankar Lal Kandora and others), arising out of Case Crime No.546 of 2017, under Sections 500, 501 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Hirdesh, daughter of the Opposite Party No.2 was to be solemnized on 28.11.2017 with applicant no.2 Pikam Chand, however, before solemnization of the said marriage, the applicants started making additional demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- and when the Opposite Party No.2 failed to fulfill their demand, the applicants assaulted the Opposite Party No.2 and refused to solemnize the marriage.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements 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, impugned charge-sheet cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to

¶11

the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within 30 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).

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. 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 observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Nadim

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 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

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others 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

Smt. Saroj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sri Siddharth and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another