Amit Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Amit Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed; however, in case the applicants file a regular bail application within twenty days, it shall be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil. Notices to respondent no.3 dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 4.10.2023 rejecting the applicants' discharge application in Complaint Case No.1163/2021 is illegal, and whether the prayer for quashing it should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be probed into at this stage; the accused will have the opportunity to lead evidence in his support at the appropriate stage during trial.

Ratio / Principle

No illegality is found in the impugned order dated 4.10.2023 rejecting the discharge application; accordingly, the prayer for quashing is refused.

Key takeaways

If the applicants file a regular bail application within twenty days, it shall be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench — Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. — Application U/S 482 No.1555 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:10408) — Amit Kumar Verma and Sarju Devi v. State of U.P. — Order Date 18.2.2025. The applicants challenged (i) the order dated 4.10.2023 of the Court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) FTC Court No.3 rejecting their discharge application in Complaint Case No.1163/2021 under Section 498-A and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, and (ii) the order dated 18.9.2024 of Additional District and Session Judge Court No.8 Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.174 of 2023. Counsel argued that even on the prosecution's admitted case the complainant is not the wife of applicant no.1 and the nikahnama is invalid owing to alleged conversion for marriage. The Court held that the disputed defence of the accused cannot be probed at this stage and that the accused will get the opportunity to lead evidence during trial; finding no illegality in the impugned order, it refused the prayer for quashing. The application was dismissed, with liberty to file a regular bail application within twenty days, to be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10408

Court No. - 16

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1555 of 2025

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Tewari,Tauqueer Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The present application has been filed by the applicants (Amit Kumar Verma and Sarju Devi) against the impugned order dated 18.9.2024 passed by the court of Additional District and Session Judge Court No.8 Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.174 of 2023 as well as order dated 4.10.2023 passed by Court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) FTC Court No.3 in Complaint case No.1163/2021 under Section 498-A and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

Notices to respondent no.3 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

Under challenge is the impugned order dated 4.10.2023 by which discharge application filed by the applicant has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the admitted case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the complainant is not the wife of the applicant no.1. The marriage/nikahnama signed by the applicant no.1 is not valid and allegedly he has converted for the purpose of marriage. The Muslim women cannot be permitted to marry a non Muslim man.

Perused the record.

From perusal of the record, it appears that earlier the applicant approached this Court via Application U/S 482 No.8802 of 2022 Amir Khan @ Amt Verma and

another vs State of U.P. and another, which was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 29.11.2022 grating liberty to the applicant to file appropriate discharge application. In compliance of the order dated 29.11.2022 (supra) it appears that discharge application was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 4.10.2023.

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be probed into at this stage. The accused will have such opportunity to lead evidence in his support at the appropriate stage during trial. I find no illegality in the order impugned, hence, the prayer for quashing is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submits that he may be granted liberty to file regular bail application and the same may be decided in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021.

In view of the above, the application is dismissed, however, it is provided that in case the applicants file a regular bail application within twenty days from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench