Dismissed

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020A482/27758/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a summoning order in a dowry case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., alleging malicious prosecution. The Court held the application should be dismissed as it requires evidentiary analysis for the trial court but granted liberty to apply for bail if surrendering within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to apply for bail within 30 days of surrendering to the Court below.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27758 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar And 2 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajni Kant Chaube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

The applicants namely, Anil Kumar, Ishrawati Devi and Raj Kapoor, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to set aside the impugned summoning order arising out of Case Crime No. 0316 of 2017, under Section- 3/4 of D.P. act, Police Station- Khorabar, District- Gorakhpur.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it was a malicious prosecution, wherein, applicants have been summoned. Applicant No. 1 Anil Kumar and his father, are government employee. They are Assistant Inspector in R.P.F. No demand of dowry was ever made nor anything was received in proposed marriage. Whereas, this false accusation was got lodged and from the very perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, was to be made from husband side to complainant side. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, vehemently opposed with this contention that marriage was settled and Rs. 1,50,000/-, was paid in a ceremony of Baraksha. Entire arrangements were made. Swift Desire car was purchased for fulfilling demand of dowry. Subsequently, marriage was denied, one day before and this all arrangement went in vain, resulting resale of above car in half of the amount, for which it was purchased. This denial was for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which could not be fulfilled. Hence, ingredients punishable for offence under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act has fully established and on the basis of it, charge-sheet was filed, wherein, cognizance was taken and Case No. 6916 of 2017, is pending before the Court of A.C.J.M.-Ist, Gorakhpur.

¶9

Learned AGA has also opposed the argument of learned counsel for the

¶10

applicants.

¶11

From the very perusal of statement submitted with application, as of accused-applicant, it is apparent that marriage was settled. It was to be performed and one day before, it was broken. This factum is admitted by applicants. Now, the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as has been filed by counter affidavit, it is apparent that amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, was paid as Baraksha and this denial of marriage was because of failure to make payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-, by complainant. The investment for marriage and purchase of Swift Desire car, has been shown by counter affidavit. But in rejoinder affidavit, these facts have not bee denied, specifically. Hence, on the basis of those evidence, collected by I.O., prima facie, there was sufficient ground for taking cognizance and summoning accused persons for above offence.

¶12

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before trial court. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.

¶13

Dismissed , accordingly.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶15

For a period of thirty (30) days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶16

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Kamarjahan

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. 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

Jahid Husain Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sughar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghuveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Siyaram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

I.P.S. Yadav Vs State of U.P. and another