Dismissed

Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024A482/20386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitioner sought to quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging false dowry harassment claims. Court quashed petition, citing that facts require trial and a prima facie case exists.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings is dismissed.

What the court decided

Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142463

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20386 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bachan Singh,Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 15.02.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2024, of case crime no. 14 of 2024, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section - 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Hafizganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and and no prima facie case is made out against him. Applicant is husband of informant and their marriage has taken place on 10.05.2023. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant are wholly false. It was submitted that applicant is a less educated person and due to that reason, informant was not happy with her marriage with applicant. She has left the matrimonial home along with her father and after a few months, the informant has lodged first information report of this case making false and baseless allegations. Learned counsel has also referred statement of independent witnesses and submitted

¶9

that there was only some minor dispute between applicant and informant. She has not sustained any injury. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the

¶13

offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

¶14

In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant is husband of informant and there marriage has taken place on 10.05.2023. Informant has alleged in the first information report that after her marriage, she was harassed by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry and they used to demand a bullet motorcycle and Rs. 2 lakhs cash. Her version is supported by witnesses. She has further alleged that applicant-accused and co-accused persons have turned her out from matrimonial home. The submissions raised by learned counsel for applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Considering the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Hence, the present application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 S Rawat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar 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

Harish Chandra Dwivedi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Prakash Alias Hari Prakash Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishwanath Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Indradev Singh vs State of Up and Another

Narendra @ Nanda and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another