Disposed

Dinesh Kushwaha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2019A482/45845/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge allowed the State application against an objection petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash summons orders and criminal proceedings. The Court held that disputed questions of fact preclude quashing and continued that the applicants were already on bail and could seek discharge through the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash the summoning order and entire proceedings; application disposed of.

Dinesh Kushwaha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45845 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Kushwaha And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Saxena 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 06.07.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 447 of 2019 (Rashmi Vs. Dinesh), under Sections 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Kannauj.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 03.06.2017, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started making demand of additional dowry from the Opposite Party No.2 and for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, they used to torture her, maltreat her and assault her and retained her streedhan and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

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.

¶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 applicants 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

Moreover, the applicants have already been granted bail and they have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 CrPC as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submission in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Nadim

Dinesh Kushwaha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kushwaha and 3 Ors. 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

Shashi Shankar Dube Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saithi Madhyan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nitin Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balakash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another