Single judge refused to quash Section 498A IPC proceedings, holding prima facie offence disclosed based on FIR and investigation material, citing Bhajan Lal guidelines. Bail left to be decided separately.
Prayer for quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance order refused. Bail application to be considered subsequently.
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. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33867 of 2022
Applicant :- Sartaj Alias Choni And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge-sheet No.161/18 dated 27.12.2018 as well as Cognizance Order dated 3.10.2019 and the consequential orders passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No.6446 of 2019 (State Vs. Sartaj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0229 of 2017, under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District- Meerut.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant no.1 was married with opposite party no.2 on 10.03.2008, 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 subjected her to cruelty and turned her out of her matrimonial home.
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 case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses and material collected during the course of investigation, prima
facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by 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 prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings is refused.
However, in case the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail, their bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 after hearing both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022 SFH
Digitally signed by SYED FAHIM HUSAIN Date: 2022.11.15 17:41:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. application challenging the charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 498A IPC warrants quashing given prima facie offence disclosed.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be considered at the stage of quashing proceedings.
Whether bail applications of the applicants should be considered subsequently.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶12
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherExplained¶12
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶13
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sartaj Alias Choni And Another
State Of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
