Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1156 of 2017 Applicant :- Akram And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Tripathi,Abinash Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that he does propose to file any counter affidavit. Therefore, the matter has been proceeded.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.6.2016 including entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1590 of 2016 (Baby Vs. Akram & Ors.), under section 498A IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Budaun, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gunnaur, Budaun.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits, arising from the matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly vague and general allegations have been made against the applicant no.1 (husband of the opposite party no. 2) and his family members, though, neither there was any occurrence nor any criminal offence had been committed by any of the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand submits, specific allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty have been made against the applicants and, therefore, no intervention is required from this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it appears, specific allegation of demand of dowry of motor cycle, washing machine, television and Rs. 1,00,000/- cash is made against applicant no. 1, however, insofar as the applicant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, allegations made against them are general and vague.
7. In view of the principle of law down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the proceeding against the applicant nos. 2 to 4 is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 4.
9. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, the relief for quashing the proceeding against him in the aforesaid case, is declined.
10. However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1.
11. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of in respect of applicant no. 1.
Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Prakhar