Partly allowed

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023A482/19586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the first applicant's quashing application as withdrawn. Regarding the remaining two applicants, the court refused the prayer to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, but directed that their bail applications be disposed of expeditiously within three weeks and restricted coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; bail applications to be considered expeditiously within three weeks; no coercive action allowed.

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126719

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19586 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has made a statement at the Bar that he does not want to press this application on behalf of applicant no. 1 and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of applicant no. 1.

¶8

Accordingly, the present application on behalf of applicant no. 1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶9

So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following orders is being passed:-

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.07.2022, summoning order dated 23.02.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5801 of 2023 (State Vs. Jitendra @ Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2022, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Satish Chandra Sharma and Smt. Baby, who happens to be father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the victim have falsely implicated in the present case. The mother of the victim has made certain allegations of making demand of dowry and harassment against the son of applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma, who is the husband of the Smt. Meenakshi Sharma (opposite party no. 2). He further submits that there are general allegations against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 no specific role has been assigned by the informant. He further

¶12

submits that as per the statement of mother of victim she herself stated that the name of applicants has been added in the first information report in order to exert pressure upon the applicants.

¶13

Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the summoning order has been passed after considering the evidence available on record, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the available record, the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5801 of 2023 (State Vs. Jitendra @ Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2022, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffarnagar, is refused .

¶15

However, it is provided that in case the applicant nos. 2 and 3 apply for bail within a period of three weeks from today, their application for bail shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶16

For a period of three weeks no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Satish Chandra Sharma and Smt. Baby for their appearance before the court below.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 Arti

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma 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

Bambaiya@ Ganga Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Ali Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Shrama and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sheela Vs State of U.P.