Dismissed

Rakesh Verma and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019A482/45076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash sanctioning order and criminal proceedings for dowry-related offenses was refused. Court directed appearance for bail consideration within 30 days and stayed coercive action. Case disposed without substantive ruling on merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; 30 days allowed to surrender for bail consideration; coercive action stayed during this period.

Rakesh Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45076 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Verma And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.09.2015 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.5772 of 2014 (Smt. Sarita Vs. Rakesh Verma and others), under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Sarita was solemnized with applicant no.1 Rakesh Verma on 13.02.2007. However, after the solemnization of the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for nonfulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants started torturing and maltreating her and committed cruelty with her. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home and was threatened to enter into a compromise in the case filed by her for grant of maintenacne under Section 125 CrPC for which the present complaint was filed.

¶8

Pursuant to the said complaint learned Magistrate after making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC has summoned the applicants to face trial vide order dated 21.09.2015, but the applicants have not yet appeared before the court below.

¶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 enquiry, 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 has submitted that from the perusal of

¶11

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, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage even the present application has been filed after a delay of more than four years and is hopelessly barred by laches.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 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) .

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Zafar

Rakesh Verma and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Verma and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shailendra Singh Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Samsuddin Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Azam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Alok Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sachin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another