Dismissed

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/38523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused quashing of summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in matrimonial dispute alleging high-handedness and threats. Explained that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Directed 45-day grace period for postal respite, forbidding coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. 45 days granted for surrender and bail application. No coercive action during this period.

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38523 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Kashyap And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 4.6.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar District Shahjahanpur in complaint case no. 13 of 2018, Ram Autar Vs. Kuldeep Kashyap and others, under section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of the applicant no.1 was proposed to be solemnised with the daughter of O.P No.2, however, ultimately the said marriage was not solemnised. At the time of settlement of the said marriage various articles are said to have been given to the applicants, however, the same have not yet been returned back despite making demand for the same and the applicants are said to have threatened the witnesses of life.

¶8

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. It is further contended that entire articles given to the applicants have been returned back.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 summoning order is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within forty five 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).

¶12

For a period of forty five 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 4.12.2019

¶15

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Alham Siddki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others