Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36881 of 2017 Applicant :- Ashif And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi,Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Wasim
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Mohd. Wasim, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 04.09.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2582/9 of 2017 (Smt. Reshma Vs. Ashif & Ors.), under Sections 406, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Kandhla, District Shali, pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Kairana.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, arising out of matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly false and frivolous allegations have been made against applicant no.1 and all his family members. He has also referred to the complaint allegations as also the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the ingredients of the offence alleged are made out against all the applicants. Therefore, he submits, the present application lacks merit.
5. Learned AGA also advanced submissions to the same effect.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, at present, it reveals that the allegations against the applicants are of having misappropriated streedhan of opposite party no.2. That being the nature of allegation and no specific details having revealed in the complaint or in the statements recorded under Sections 200 ad 202 Cr.P.C. as to the involvement of applicant nos. 2 to 5, the allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 5 appear to be general and vague. Without disclosing the minimum details, general and vague allegations may never be sufficient to allow prosecution to arise against applicant nos. 2 to 5 (family members of applicant no.1) in view of 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.
7. Thus, it is clear to the Court that present is only a case of matrimonial discord which is the real dispute between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 5. Criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed against the said applicants (2 to 5).
9. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, he being the husband it is difficult to quash the complaint proceedings at this stage, inasmuch allegation of misappropriation of streedhan has been made which is supported by statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. To that extent, the complaint proceedings may continue against applicant no. 1 and the relief prayed by him is declined.
10. 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 30 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.
11. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against applicant no.1.
12. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of in respect of applicant no.1.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 AHA