In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 498A IPC, the High Court held that no case was made out for interference. The prayers were refused.
Application dismissed; no coercive action for 2 months while applicants surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5070 of 2019
Applicant :- Vikas Malhotra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the further proceedings of case no. 52360 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikash Malhotra and others), in case crime no. 110 of 2018, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and also quash the cognizance order dated 8.10.2018 and further proceedings of charge sheet dated 14.7.2018, in case crime no. 110 of 2018, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanur Nagar and also to stay the further proceedings of the above case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.
Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.
From the perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the 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 and affirmed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.2.2019 OP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the cognizance order and further proceedings in the criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikas Malhotra And 2 Others
State Of Up And 2 Others
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
