Dismissed

Mohd. Nadeem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/44807/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act initiated against the applicants. The court found a prima facie offence and refused the quashing prayer but directed that if the applicants surrender within 45 days and apply for bail, the bail plea will be considered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused. Applicants allowed 45 days to surrender and apply for bail.

Mohd. Nadeem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44807 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Nadeem And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chopra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Sri Anil Kumar Ray, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.9.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 586 of 2018 (Monika Dubey @ Sarah Vs. Mohd. Nadeem and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Allahabad.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 18.3.2008, however after the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and and committed cruelty with opposite party no. 2 and also assaulted her and threatened her of life.

¶9

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 inquiry, no 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.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for 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 inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶11

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 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).

¶14

For a period of 45 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 KU

Mohd. Nadeem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nadeem and 2 Others 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

Jittan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Kumar Saini and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yujvendra Solanki and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salim Alias Salim Ahmad Warsi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others