Dismissed

Vishal Rana and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022A482/27363/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for dowry-related offences, the Court refused to quash the case as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The Court held that no offence is made out since defence questions remain undecided. Bail directions were refused as Apex Court guidelines already exist. The application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing proceedings dismissed. Interim order vacated. No specific bail directions issued.

Vishal Rana and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27363 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vishal Rana And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Tiwari,S.P.S. Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears for the opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including the charge sheet dated 16.02.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2018 (State Vs. Vishal Rana and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, District Aligarh.

¶7

Vide earlier order of this Court dated 16.07.2019, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The Incharge Mediation Centre, vide its report dated 12.12.2019 has reported that mediation between the parties failed, copy of which report is on record.

¶8

Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.02.2021, on which date, the instant application was disposed of in respect of applicant no.1-husband namely,Vishal Rana, whereas, in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 4, notices were issued to the opposite party no.2, in the meantime, interim protection was granted in their favour.

¶9

Today when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 01.02.201, the applicant no.1 appeared before the Court below and has been enlarged on bail.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is

¶11

made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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 Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The reliefs as sought by the applicants is refused.

¶13

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.

¶15

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶16

Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.11.2022 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.11.16 10:19:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Rana and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Rana and 3 Ors. 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

Smt. Veena Kumari Vs Daya Ram

Dampi Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aas Mohammad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mahendra Singh @ Maddar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sanjay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another