Partly allowed

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023A482/980/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application to quash proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law but quashed them against the in-law sister and brother-in-law due to vague allegations, considering a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed against applicant Nos. 3 and 4; application refused against applicant Nos. 1 and 2; bail application to be filed separately by Nos. 1 and 2.

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180264

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 980 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Akhtar Ali And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned charge-sheet no.57 of 2018, dated 23.07.2018, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.08.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No.46 of 2018 (State Vs. Ahmad Raja & others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 325 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chitbara Gaon, District Ballia, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the first informant report, it is alleged that marriage of Ahmad Raja (son of the applicant No.1 and 2) and Jeba Firdaus (daughter of opposite party No.2) was solemnized on 29.10.2015. Applicant no.1 is the father-in-law, applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.3 is the sister-inlaw (nand) and applicant no.4 is the brother-in-law (nandoi) of the daughter of opposite party no.2, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for nonfulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and subjected her to cruelty and turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been

¶10

instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of Investigation, prima facie, offence is clearly made out against applicants. It is further submitted that applicant nos.1 and 2 being the head of the family instead of keeping their daughter-in-law with all love, care and due affection started making demand of additional dowry and tortured her, as such, they are not entitled to any relief and the instant proceedings cannot be quashed against them.

¶12

Moreover, 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 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the applicant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, looking to the specific allegations made against applicant nos.1 and 2 (father-in-law and mother-in-law), the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.

¶14

However, in case applicant nos.1 and 2 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 (2022) 10 SCC 51 after hearing the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the instant application on behalf of applicant nos.1 and 2 stands disposed of.

¶16

So far as the applicant nos.3 to 4 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that no specific

¶17

allegation has been made against them rather general and vague allegations, just to drag them in criminal court has been alleged. They, in fact, have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs between husband and wife and have been falsely roped in only on account of being the family members of her husband.

¶18

From the material collected during the course of investigation, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations have been made against applicant nos.3 and 4 and as such, they cannot be forced to undergo trial as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

¶19

In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parak Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the aforesaid proceedings in respect of applicant nos.3 to 4 stands quashed.

¶20

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against applicant nos.3 and 4 only.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Amit/-

¶22

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

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others 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

Smt Rekha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar @ Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Alias Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Alias Santosh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahrukh Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another