Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16583 of 2017 Applicant :- Aneesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta Iind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the name of applicant no.1.
2. Office to make necessary corrections before issuing the certified copy of this order.
3. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Jai Chand Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded with.
5. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 02.02.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1036 of 2015 (Smt. Shabnam Vs. Anish & Ors.), under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Fatehpur.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, arising from the pure matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly false and frivolous allegations have been made against that applicant and his parents. Referring to the complaint allegation and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that wholly imaginary allegations have been made against applicant no.1 as no such incident had ever taken place and no criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. In any case, the allegations against applicant nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be wholly vague and general.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that specific allegatons for commission of offence of demand of dowry, cruelty, assault and intimidation have been made. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present application.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that, insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, specific allegations of demand of dowry etc. have been made. Therefore, the relief prayed for quashing the entire complaint proceedings is declined.
9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
10. For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against applicant no.1.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of in respect of applicant no.1.
12. Insofar as applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, wholly vauge and general allegations appear to have been made. Clearly, the main allegations as also the substance of the allegations are against applicant no.1 with respect to demand of dowry as also with respect to other allegations contained in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In such facts, keeping in mind the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr,, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, the proceedings against applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid complaint case are quashed.
13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3.
14. The present application is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 29.5.2019 AHA