Dismissed

Charan Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2019A482/9182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, rejected the plea that the prosecution was malafide. The court held that disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage but noted the possibility of compromise.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; summoning order not quashed; Bail law to be considered by Trial Court.

Charan Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9182 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Charan Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3028 of 2011, (Smt. Neha versus Charan Singh and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station M.M. Gate, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 8th, Agra and summoning order dated 28.01.2018 in the aforesaid compliant case.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that no offence against applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is further contended that there is possibility of compromise between the parties, therefore, Hon'ble Court may please to stay the aforesaid compliant case proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, it appears that learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. find sufficient ground for proceeding and prima-facie case against accused-applicants, passed summoning order.

¶10

At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question 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 the law laid down by the Apex Court in the 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

¶11

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶12

I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶13

However, Trial Court is directed, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, law established by Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.

¶14

In view thereof, application is disposed of. Order Date :- 15.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Charan Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh and 4 Others 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

Bhola and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another