Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21143 of 2017 Applicant :- Balveer Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 888 of 2016 (Smt. Sushila vs. Balveer and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, arising from the matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, false and exaggerated allegations have been made against all the applicants including the mother and brother of the applicant no. 1. The father of the applicant no. 1 is since deceased, therefore, he has been deleted from the array of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits, the complaint allegations are against all the applicants. In fact, the opposite party no. 2 resided with the applicant nos. 3 and 4 and that the applicant no. 1 used to visit her during the time of leave.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint as also the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. (as have been annexed with the present application), it appears that the main allegation of dowry and assault made is against the applicant no. 1. Even in the complaint, opposite party no. 2 stated that the demand of dowry used to be made by applicant no. 1 when he used to visit her during his leave and that he beat her up. In such occurrences, it has been generally stated, the other applicants joined applicant no. 1 in the commission of offence.
6. However, perusal of complaint and the statements do not indicate that the applicant nos. 3 and 4 were otherwise involved in the commission of any offence. The allegations against those applicants are general and vague in nature.
7. In view of the principle of law down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the proceeding against the applicant nos. 3 and 4 is hereby quashed.
8. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, it appears that the ingredients of offence are made out against him, at this stage, inasmuch as it is not for this Court to go into the factual aspect of the matter.
9. However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1.
10. After the applicant no.1 has been enlarged on bail, it would remain open to him to make proper application seeking exemption. It shall also remain open to the applicant no. 1 to seek discharge at appropriate stage, which application if filed shall be decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Prakhar