Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Sadh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/45428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash a prosecution FIR and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC in a dowry harassment case. The court directed surrender within 45 days for bail consideration and barred coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings dismissed; applicants directed to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration without coercive action.

Vinod Kumar Sadh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45428 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Sadh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey 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 12..6.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 03 of 2019 (Smt. Muskan Sadh Vs. Prateek Sadh and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/ Fast Track Court, Farrukhabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to Prateek Sadh nephew of applicant nos. 1 and 2 on 13.4.2014, 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 beaten her and also committed cruelty with her and 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 inquiry, 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 inquiry, 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 :- 6.1.2020 KU

Vinod Kumar Sadh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sadh and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akil Qureshi and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Raj Singh Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Chhatrapal Kashyap Vs State of Up and Anr.

Shoaib Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Abbas Vs State of U.P. and Another