Dismissed

Servesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020A482/512/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for dowry harassment. It directed that if applicants surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, their prayer will be considered per settled law, while no coercive action will be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings denied; temporary stay on coercive action for 30 days conditional on surrender and bail application.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 512 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Servesh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla 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 entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3808 of 2018 (Smt. Anokhi Devi Vs. Sarvesh Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bhojipura, DistrictBareilly, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,-III, 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 23.5.2010, 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 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 Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu

¶11

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 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 30 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 :- 7.1.2020 KU

Servesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Servesh Kumar and 2 Others 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

Prashant Seth Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaukat Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kohinoor Charcol Industries through Proprietor Kamrul Haq Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arpit Gupta Vs Smt. Nisha @ Babali

Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs Learned Special Judge and Another

Asif and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another