Dismissed

Smt. Ram Payari and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/7345/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court refused to quash the charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings against the applicants in a dowry harassment case. Disputed questions of fact were noted as unsuitable for adjudication under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge-sheet and proceedings dismissed; 45-day window granted for surrender and bail application to avoid coercive action.

Smt. Ram Payari and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7345 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ram Payari And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kaushlendra Singh,Prashant Saxena

¶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 Charge-Sheet No.01 of 2017, dated 07.09.2017, order dated 09.01.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 08 of 2018 (State Vs. Pushpendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no.7 on 06.03.2016, 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 committed cruelty with her 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 FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, 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 FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, charge-sheet, impugned order and 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

¶11

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.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, impugned order and entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/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 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 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 observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Nadim

Smt. Ram Payari and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ram Payari and 6 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

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