Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and charge-sheet in a dowry harassment case. The Court held that prima facie ingredients of the offences were disclosed, requiring determination of facts at trial. Application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114220
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21578 of 2024
Applicant :- Raju Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Jaiswal,Sandeep Kumar Keshari,Sudhanshu Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
applicant is husband of informant/victim and there are allegations against him that he has harassed the informant/victim on account of dowry and that there are specific allegations against him. It was submitted that co-accused Deepak Gaur, Mukha Devi and Sarita Devi are brother-in-law (jeth), mother-in-law and sister-in-law (jethani) of the informant and their case is on different footing. The applicant, being husband of informant, is mainly responsible for the offence in question.
is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. In the instant matter, there are allegations that the victim/informant was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry. 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 the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the 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. In the instant matter, in view of 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 the applicant. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out and the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Anand
Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case against the applicant under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act justifying quashing of proceeding
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan LalReferred¶13
AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal · Who else cites this
R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and OthersReferred¶13
R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. GillReferred¶13
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of DelhiReferred¶13
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 · Who else cites this
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & OrsReferred¶13
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Raju Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
