Dismissed

Smt. Ramawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019A482/9040/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for 498-A IPC, dowry harassment, and related charges. The court held that disputed facts preclude quashing and no prima facie non-offence was established.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; proceedings against applicants maintained.

Smt. Ramawati and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9040 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ramawati And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Das Srivastava,Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1559 of 2015 (Old Case No. 242 of 2014, (Priti v. Vikas and Another) under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of ACJM-II, Court No. 13, Jaunpur and summoning order dated 1.12.2014 as well as impugned order dated 3.11.2017 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Jaunpur rejecting the discharge application of accused-applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. It is further contended by learned counsel for applicants that a divorce decree has already been granted by Family Judge in Case No. 7 of 2013 and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by respondent No.2 has already been dismissed on 24.7.2012. He pointed out that some document and statement of witnesses in their favour.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

It appears from the record that respondent No.2 was married to applicant No.2Vikas Tiwari, who and his family members demanded Rs. 4.0 lakhs and one Pulsher Motorcycle, she was ill-treated and tortured. The applicants have denied to return the Jewellary and cash given at the time of marriage belonging to her, therefore, she filed a complaint case against applicants in which Magistrate has recorded the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and making an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by recording the statement of witnesses and found sufficient evidence and ground for proceedings and summoned the accused applicants for facing the trial. Accused-applicants made an application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. without surrendering themselves before the Court which has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 3.11.2017.

¶10

Admittedly, complainant has not produced her evidence before the trial court under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and discharge application can be decided on the evidence adduced under Section 244 Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel could not show any provision due to which previous litigation prevents the applicants to file a

¶11

complaint.

¶12

In Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 528 , Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶13

" 23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22.6.2006 by adding the words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction". there is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment."

¶14

From perusal of material on record and looking to 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 Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in Cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶15

I do not see any good ground for quashing the same and prayer is refused.

¶16

Accordingly, application is rejected .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.3.2019 / Manoj

Smt. Ramawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ramawati and Anr. 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

Kaushal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malya Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Others

Jokhan Khan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Rampal and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Chand Pathak Vs State of Up and Another

Sonu@Sunu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another