Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019A482/46477/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash Section 498A IPC and DV Act proceedings. While noting facts are disputed, the Court directed the applicant to surrender within thirty days for bail consideration, threatening coercive action if he fails to appear.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action during this period.

Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap Vs State of U.P.and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46477 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Singh,Ganesh Shankar Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the entire proceeding as well as N.B.W. dated 28.9.2019 of Complaint Case No. 79 of 2017, Smt. Mamta Vs. Veer Pal and others, under section 498A I.P.C. and section 4 of D.P. Act. P.S. Sahavar, District Kasgaj, pending in the court of Judicial Magitrate, Kasganj.

¶8

As per the allegation made in the complaint. it is alleged that the of O.P. No.2 was married to the applicant no.1 about five years back, however, after marriage the applicant started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicant used to torture and maltreat her and committed cruelty with her and also has turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view 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.

¶12

Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding and N.B.W. is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within thirty 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 thirty days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 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 directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.12.2019

¶17

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap 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

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

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

Shashibala and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another