Dismissed

Shri Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019A482/8799/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 application seeking to quash criminal proceedings for matrimonial disputes involving threats, the court refused automatic quashing due to disputed facts and prima facie offence. However, the court stayed coercive proceedings and granted 45 days for the applicant to surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of proceedings; granted 45-day stay on coercive action; directed applicant to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days.

Shri Kishan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8799 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shri Kishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuraj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 31.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4738 of 2016 (Dayashankar Vs. Ram Prakash and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra, pending in the Court of II^nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 19.03.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 30.11.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the marriage of complainant's son Ravi was settled with one Rekha and at the time of the settlement of the said marriage, various jewelries and other articles were exchanged but the said marriage was not solemnized. In the settlement of the said marriage, applicant acted as a mediator as such, the complainant asked the applicant to return back various jewelries and other articles which was given to them at time of the settlement of the marriage in which the applicant also participated. However, despite request, the said articles were not returned back and the applicant threatened him for life.

¶10

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant 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.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of

¶12

the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶13

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.

¶14

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. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within forty five 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) .

¶16

For a period of forty five 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 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Zafar

Shri Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kishan 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

Shakeel Ahmad Beg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Pratima Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Mathur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and another