Karan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

Karan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing refused. Applicant no.1 (Karan) permitted 30 days to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, the bail application to be considered in view of Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action against the applicants for 30 days or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier; in default, coercive action may be taken. As regards applicant nos. 2 and 3, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks, counter and rejoinder affidavits permitted, and no coercive action against them till the next date of listing. Application finally disposed of so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 25.9.2019, the cognizance order dated 7.2.2020 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.1391 of 2020 (State v. Karan & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2019 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

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 applicants.

Ratio / Principle

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Key takeaways

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq.ratio¶¶9
The applicants have a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. through a proper application, and are free to take all their submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.ratio¶¶9
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 10148 of 2020, decided 26.8.2020 — Karan and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another: Quashing sought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the charge sheet dated 25.9.2019, cognizance order dated 7.2.2020 (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Ghaziabad) and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1391 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Ghaziabad. Held: on the material on record it could not be said that no offence was made out; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and only a prima facie view was to be taken in the light of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); the accused were free to seek discharge under Sections 239/227/228/245 Cr.P.C. Quashing refused. Applicant no.1 given 30 days to appear, surrender and apply for bail, bail to be considered in view of Amrawati v. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)), with no coercive action in the interim and coercive action permitted on default. As regards applicant nos. 2 and 3, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 (returnable in four weeks) with counter/rejoinder affidavits, and no coercive action against them till the next date of listing. Application finally disposed of as regards applicant no. 1.