Disposed

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019A482/4071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a dowry-related case. The court observed no infirmity in the impugned order. However, it granted a two-month moratorium on coercive action if the applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash was refused. A two-month moratorium on coercive action was granted pending surrender and bail application.

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4071 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shravan Kumar Pandey And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No.1 dated 28.8.2018 and consequential criminal proceding of Criminal Case No. 7008 of 2018(State vs. Shravan Kumar Pandey & 5 others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti as well as congnizance & summoning order dated 15.12.2018 passed by CJM, Basti under sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Case Crime No. 100/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali Basti, District Basti.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned orders passed are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after considering whole evidence on record and are just and legal.

¶11

From perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

However, it is observed that in case the applicants

¶14

surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the 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 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) . For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶16

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 P.P.

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Up and Another

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

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Up and 03 Others

Lakhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another