Dismissed

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020A482/39434/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for dowry harassment and cruelty, the Single Bench held that the dispute must be tried on merits as a prima facie case exists. The application was dismissed, but a direction to appear for bail was issued.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash dismissed; 45 days stay from coercive action granted if applicant appears and applies for bail.

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav Vs State of Up and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39434 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Raj Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey,Virendra Pratap Pal

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 10.04.2018 passed by learned A.C.M.M. VIIth Kanpur Nagar, as well as proceeding of Complaint Case No. 58744 of 2016 (Shipra Yadav Versus Shiv Raj Singh Yadav & others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 406 I.P.c and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of A.C.M.M. VIIth Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

This Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to amicably settle the dispute, however, Mediation Centre vide its report dated 01.06.2019 has reported that

¶9

the parties could not reach at any settlement and mediation has failed.

¶10

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 04.12.2011, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started making demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lac) and car as additional dowry from the Opposite Party No.2 and for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, they used to torture and maltreat her and committed cruelty with her. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home and threatened her of life.

¶11

On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the victim and the witnesses under Sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C and thereafter, summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 406 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 10.04.2018.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are living separately for the last eight years and they have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs of the Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A for the State has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that specific allegation of torturing, maltreating and committing cruelty with the Opposite Party No.2 has been made against the applicants

¶14

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the impugned orders as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/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

¶16

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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶17

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.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.1.2020 Vinod.

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav v. State of Up 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

Junaid Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Idrees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subham Singh @ Chikki and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saudani Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another