Criminal Court No. 34 dismissed the quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held allegations are factual, held orders disposed with direction to file bail application before lower court within one month.
Application disposed of; direction to move bail application before lower court within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1803 of 2022
Applicant :- Parmajeet Kaur@ Pammi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 24.06.2021, summoning/ cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 654 of 2021 (State Vs. Sardar Gurmel & others)arising out of Case Crime No.034 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Titron, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of C.J. (J.D.)/ F.T.C. Saharanpur.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are sister-in-law and brother-in-law (nand and nandoi) of the opposite party no.2. The applicants got married in the year 2002 and since then they are living separately. The opposite party no.2 got married in the year, 2012. Now after 8-9 years of the marriage the demand of dowry cannot be said to be acceptable. No medical report has been filed. Hence, prayer to quash the charge-sheet is made.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and contended that in the F.I.R. and the statement of the victim specific role has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants are also said to have harass the victim for bringing Rs.5 lakhs and one big car as extra dowry. It is further contended that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the victim are living with the present applicants and they have vacated their ancestral house just to harass the victim. According to the victim, she alone is living in that house. Admittedly, the present applicants, father-inlaw and mother-in-law are living together. The husband of the victim has also came back from Qatar and he is also said to have harass the victim in continuation of demand of extra dowry.
As the allegations are factual, which cannot be seen under 482 Cr.P.C. and the offences mentioned are cognizable one, hence, the application is disposed of with the direction that the applicants shall appear before the lower court within a period of one month from today and move an application for bail therein. The lower court shall be under obligation to consider and decide the bail application in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950 .
Order Date :- 7.2.2022 Radhika
Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.02.10 17:32:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of charge-sheet under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶8
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh and others v. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶8
Brahm Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parmajeet Kaur @ Pammi
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
