Dismissed

Narendra Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/1206/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings in a dowry cruelty case was refused. Applicants given 45 days to surrender and apply for bail; otherwise coercive action permitted.

What did the court decide?

Application refused to quash proceedings. Applicants granted 45 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

Narendra Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1206 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Behari Mathur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 23.5.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1689 of 2017 in Complaint Case No. 969 of 2019 (Smt. Rajwati Sagar Vs. Narendra Singh and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Subhashnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bareilly.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 30.4.2007, however after the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and committed cruelty with her and has turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, 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 complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar

¶11

Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and 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 judgement 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 directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 KU

Narendra Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh and 2 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

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Trilok Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Yadav @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another