Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023A482/38768/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's plea to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case. Finding that prima facie an offence was disclosed, the Court refused the quash petition. It directed that if the applicants appear for bail within three weeks, their application will be reconsidered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings refused; bail applications to be considered if filed within three weeks.

Munendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38768 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,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 by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 6.5.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 599 of 2021 (Priyanka vs. Munendra Yadav and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Uttar, District- Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant No. 1 on 28.11.2017, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started making additional demand for dowry and for nonfulfilment of demand of additional dowry used to torture her, maltreated her and subjected her to cruelty and turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶8

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 as well as entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses and material collected during the course of inquiry prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.

¶11

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 as well as entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶12

However, in case the applicants appear before the court below within three weeks from today 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 the parties.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 KU

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra 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

Priyanka Kureel Vs State of U.P and Another

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhruj Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Hasan @ Sanu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra @ Guddu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another