Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43054 of 2019
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Guatam And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Abhay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the summoning order dated 19.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate,-I, Bhadohi as well as proceeding of complaint case No. 1272 of 2017, Sanju Devi Vs. Anil Kumawr Gautam and others, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.
As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that the O.P. No.2 was married to the applicant no.1 on 12.5.2007, however, after marriage the applicant started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicant used to torture and maltreat her and also has turned her out of her matrimonial home.
The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty 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 judgment 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 thirty days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 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 :- 26.11.2019 R