Disposed

Rakesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022A482/4380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application to quash proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute FIR, holding that a prima facie case existed and disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage, directing surrender and expeditious bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender within three weeks; no coercive action against applicants for that period; bail application directed to be disposed expeditiously.

Rakesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4380 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.10.2021 arising out of Case Crime no. 473 of 2021 (State vs. Rakesh & others), under Sections 323, 506 IPC and for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.60 of 2022, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant-opposite party no. 2, who is an advocate, only with a view to harass and victimize the applicant has lodged the present FIR under Sections 313, 323, 506 IPC, however, after investigation, charge for the offence under Section 313 has not been made out as the informant has got miscarriage of her fetus of her own willingness; chargesheet has been filed in the present case only under Sections 323, 506 IPC; the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 have got married on 27.11.2015 with Hindu customs and opposite party no. 2 came to her matrimonial home and started living with applicant no. 1, however, after sometime, some matrimonial dispute commenced and opposite party no. 2 had lodged FIR with false allegations against the applicant and his family members vide Crime no. 402 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar; when the applicants came to know about lodging of FIR, he arranged a meeting with informant and family members and persuaded the opposite party no. 2 for compromise and the parties have entered into compromise in the Mediation Centre, Gautam Budh Nagar; wherein, police has submitted final report on 28.01.2017; after compromise, applicant and opposite party no. 2 again started living together; even one baby was borne from the wedlock; after sometime opposite party no. 2 has again started quarreling with the applicant and thereafter opposite party no. 2 started living at her parental house and then lodged FIR on 12.12.2017 vide Case Crime no. 688 of 2017, under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with false

¶8

allegations; wherein, chargesheet was filed by the police; applicant no. 1 moved this Court by filing Application u/s 482 No. 4374 of 2022, wherein matter was referred to District Mediation Centre, Gautam Budh Nagar on fulfillment of certain conditions and interim order was passed; mediation failed in that case; it is third case lodged at the instance of opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. submits that it is admitted facts that there is matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 and mediation also failed second FIR lodged at the instance of opposite party no. 2.

¶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 made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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.

¶11

In view of above, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court below within three weeks from today and in case they apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be disposed of expeditiously by the court below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶12

For a period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Dhirendra/

¶15

Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.09.19 12:55:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P and 9 Others

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haidar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ranjeet Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another