Dismissed

Smt. Kusum and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023A482/1897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings in a matrimonial offence case. Finding that the allegations prima facie make out a clear offence, the court dismissed the prayer. However, it permitted a future bail application if applicants surrender within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings; bail application to be considered if applicants surrender within three weeks.

Smt. Kusum and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1897 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kusum And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.08.2020, cognizance order dated 27.11.2020 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17974 of 2020 (State Vs. Arun Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1048 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that opposite party no.2 was married to applicant no.2 on 24.11.2012, however after the said marriage, the applicants started making demand of additional dowry from the opposite party no.2 and for nonfulfillment of the same, they used to torture her, maltreat her and subjected her to cruelty and turned her out from matrimonial home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that allegations made in the FIR are false, cooked up and concocted made just with an intention to drag the applicants in criminal court and as such, entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants.

¶12

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, prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings is refused.

¶13

However in case, the applicants appear/ surrender before the court below and apply for bail within three weeks from today, their bail application be considered and decided 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 16.1.2023 Nadim

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kusum and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusum and Another v. State of Up 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

Amit Tiwari @ Amit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwati Pathak Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Obaidurrahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gore @ Yogesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another