Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39969 of 2018 Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay @ Anoop Amarnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant for quashing of N.B.W. order dated 14.12.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadhohi in complaint case no.
117 of 2010, Ritu Vs. Anoop Kumar, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S.
Chauri District Sant Ravi Das Nagar Bhadhohi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate IInd Bhadhohi.
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 8.6.2006, 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 learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malfide 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 applicant. 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 N.B.W. is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within Forty five days from today and applies for bail, his 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 forty five days from today or till the applicant surrenders/applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 R