Dismissed

Aftab Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019A482/43099/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash summoning order under Section 482 CrPC in a dowry harassement case as it involved disputed facts. The application was disposed of with a direction for bail eligibility upon surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of summoning order refused; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action during this period.

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43099 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aftab Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.08.2019 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 464 of 2017 (Jahid Vs. Aftab Alam and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.

¶7

As per allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant about two years back from the date of filing the complaint, however, after the said marriage, the applicant started making demand of additional dowry from the Opposite Party No.2 and for nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry, he used to torture her, maltreat her and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant 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.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA 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 applicant and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

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,

¶11

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.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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).

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Nadim

Aftab Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftab Alam 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

Jay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh @Kalu and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Annapurna Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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