Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019A482/37223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as disputed questions of fact existed. A 30-day moratorium on coercive action was granted if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; 30-day period granted for surrender and bail application; coercive action stayed during this period.

Sri Siddharth and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37223 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Siddharth And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Kumar Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Singh

¶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 charge-sheet dated 17.05.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.4015250 of 2018 (State Vs. Siddharth and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 11.10.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to make an attempt to reach an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 20.02.2019 has reported that mediation has been completed and the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Vartika was solemnized with applicant no.1 Siddharth on 02.05.2015. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and also assaulted her, due to which, she has suffered injuries on her person and has been medically examined and she has been turned 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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) .

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Zafar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddharth 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

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

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