Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/62/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged dowry harassment. The court held that disputed facts preclude quashing at this stage but allowed surrender and bail within 30 days without coercive action. The application was finally disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order and proceedings refused; 30 days granted for surrender and bail application without coercive action.

Shaukat Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 62 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shaukat Ali Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Girja Shanker Sen

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.02.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12104 of 2017 (Ajmain Vs. Shaukat Ali Khan and others), under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant on 12.11.2012, however, after the said marriage, the applicant started making demand of additional dowry from the Opposite Party No.2 and for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, he used to torture her, maltreat her and beaten her and threatened to set her ablaze and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an FIR was lodged vide Case Crime No. 146 of 2015. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and submitted a final report against the applicant.

¶10

On the submission of the final report by the Investigating Officer, a notice was sent to the first informant/Opposite Party No.2, who filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint and thereafter, learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the victim/Opposite Party No.2 and that of her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and has summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated 05.02.2018.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and the allegations made against him are absolutely cooked up and concocted and the same has been alleged only on account of matrimonial discord.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of the victim and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, in which, it has been categorically stated that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, the applicant used to torture her, maltreat her and threatened to set her ablaze and to solemnize second marriage turned her out of her matrimonial home, as such, prima face offence is made out against the applicant.

¶13

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.

¶14

The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 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).

¶16

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 Nadim

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukat Ali Khan 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

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