Dismissed

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2019A482/41679/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash summons and proceedings in a dowry case was dismissed. The court held that a prima facie case was made out based on the complaint material, but trivial coercive action was directed for 30 days pending surrender for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; no coercive action for 30 days contingent on surrender and bail application.

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41679 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Rai,Durgesh Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 12.12.2018 and 15.10.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2029 of 2018 (Raj Bahadur Vs. Rahul Singh), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bara Gaon, District Varanasi.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that Priya Singh was married to applicant no.1 Rahul singh on 21.05.2017, however after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry from her and for non-fulfillment of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and have assaulted her, due to which, she has suffered injuries on her person and has been medically examined.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on the basis of said complaint, learned Magistrate, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC and thereafter, summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 12.12.2018.

¶10

Against the said order dated 12.12.2018, the applicants preferred a Criminal Revision, which has also been rejected by the order dated 15.10.2019.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no

¶12

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.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned orders cannot be quashed.

¶14

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to 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.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is therefore refused.

¶16

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).

¶17

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.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.11.2019 Nadim

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another 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

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Devi and Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Chanda Vishwakarma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another