Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9590 of 2017 Applicant :- Akshat Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Chitranshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav,K.C. Mishra,Sameer Jain
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, District Chandauli, in Complaint Case No. 931 of 2016 (Pratibha Srivastav Vs. Akshat Verma), under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chakia, District Chandauli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, arising from the matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, vague, general and false allegations have been made against the applicant in criminal prosecution lodged by opposite party no.2. It is further stated that the applicant is differently abled, inasmuch as he has impaired hearing and speech. Also, on the date of occurrence, he claims that the applicant was attending his office duties at the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti at Allahabad and in proof thereof, a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Samiti has been annexed. Further, it is stated that the applicant and opposite party no.2 got married in 2013, whereas the opposite party no.2 has been living separately since 2015. Even otherwise, it is stated that the allegations made are wholly improbable, inasmuch as the applicant is alleged to have visited the paternal village of opposite party no.2 and assaulted her during panchayat that was being called to settle the dispute between the parties. Therefore, it has been prayed that the present complaint proceedings may be quashed.
4. Shri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that, at this stage, no ground is made out to quash the complaint proceedings, inasmuch as, in the present case, the injuries received by opposite party no.2 are supported by injury report, which is part of the complaint. The applicant being husband, the plea of alibi set up by him may not be accepted at this stage as the place of occurrence is not far from the place of residence. In any case, the correctness of the employer's certificate may be examined during the course of the prosecution proceedings.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, at present, in view of the injuries sustained by opposite party no.2 as are supported by the injury report, it cannot be said that the entire prosecution case is based on vague and general allegations. The learned court below has also acted mindful of the allegations made and summoned the present applicant.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is denied.
7. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
8. For a period of 60 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant.
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is
disposed of against applicant no.1.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 AHA