Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12287 of 2007 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- I.K. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.11.2006 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1261 of 2006 (Dharam Pal vs Anuj and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut. Proceedings were initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and statement of opposite party no.2 Dharam Pal was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and further, the statements of Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Rajni have been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as PW 1 and PW 2 respectively. On the basis of aforesaid statements, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Meerut passed an order on 16.11.2006, summoning the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is a matrimonial dispute and vide the order dated 31st May, 2007 matter was referred to mediation centre to re- conciliate the same.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party No.2 are an after thought, as such the same are not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Pert contra, learned A.G.A. submits that from the perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
The submissions made by the applicants' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order/proceedings of the complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the applicants may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed off.
Trial court shall proceed accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 A.Kr.