Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the no-offence stage was not met. Directs surrender within 30 days for bail consideration pending, with a stay on coercive action.
Prayer for quashing refused; direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; stay on coercive action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39682 of 2019
Applicant :- Rohit Bishnoi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 6224 of 2018, Radha Varma Vs. Rahul Vishnoi and others, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist, Kanpur Nagar and summoning order dated 30.10.2018 passed by M.M.IInd Kanpur Nagar.
As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 16.4.2019, O.P. No.2 was married to Rahul son of applicant No.2, brother of applicants no. 1 and 3, however, after the said marriage the applicants started demanding dowry and for non-fulfilment of dowry the applicants started torturing and maltreating her.
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.
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.
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.
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 judgement 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).
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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.11.2019
R
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the proceeding and summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
Whether disputed questions of fact preclude quashing of criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Bishnoi And 2 Others
State Of Up
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
