Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43539 of 2019 Applicant :- Amarjeet Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.10.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3408 of 2018 (Priyanka @ Tinkal Vs. Amarjeet Yadav and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Ghosi, District- Mau, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 19.4.2017, however after the said marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and and committed cruelty and also assaulted her and turned out of her matrimonial house.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 KU