Disposed

Pravesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2023A482/20009/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act as disputed facts require trial. The court directed lower courts to expedite bail hearings if the applicants surrender following guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directions issued for expeditious hearing of bail application if applicants surrender.

Pravesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119383

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20009 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.237 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.90 of 2019, under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly as well as impugned cognizance order dated 24.02.2020 and charge sheet dated 17.09.2019.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicants, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

From the perusal of 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 submissions 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 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, 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

¶10

accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above mentioned case is hereby refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶13

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶14

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶15

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.5.2023

¶17

Ajeet

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pravesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh Kumar and Another 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

Awadhraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Nath Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.

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

Satendra Alias Surendra and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

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