Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Devendra Kumar Rawat And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23028 of 2017 Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Rawat And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neel Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Govil
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Neel Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Govil, learned counsel for the 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 impugned summoning order dated 07.06.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Mathura in Case No. 703 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Devendra Kumar & Others), under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Mathura.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that arising from a simple matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly exaggerated and false allegations have been made against all the applicants including the parents and brother of applicant no.1. According to him, neither there was any demand of dowry nor any assault was committed by the applicants. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has lodged the present criminal prosecution as a counter blast to an earlier proceedings instituted by the applicant no.1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Sri Pankaj Kumar Govil and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA on the other hand submit that at present the ingredients of the offence are made out from a plain reading of the complaint and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference in the present proceedings.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5.A. Besides the fact that the applicant no.1 appears to have instituted the proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which have remained pending.
Perusal of the complaint and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. suggest that only vague and general allegations have been made against all the applicants. Though the opposite party no.2 and her witness (who are close family members) have stated that all the applicants assaulted opposite party no.2 and dropped her at her parental home on 02.01.2016, however, there is no injury report or any other independent witness to support such allegation. It having been alleged that the opposite party no.2 had been assaulted by four persons, it does appear wholly improbable that there are no injuries suffered. The allegations are vague specially, it appears that arising out of matrimonial discord, such allegations have been made against all the applicants. At the same time, the allegations against applicant no.1 of having made demand of dowry etc. appear to be complete so as to constitute ingredient of the offence alleged.
6. In view of the principle of law down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and 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. 2 to 4 are hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed in respect of applicant nos.2 to 4.
8. The prayer for quashing the proceeding in the aforesaid case on behalf of applicant no.1 is declined.
9. However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 30 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1.
10. With the above observations, the application stand disposed of in respect of applicant no.1.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 S.Chaurasia
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Devendra Kumar Rawat And Others vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 April, 2019
Judges
  • Saumitra Dayal Singh
Advocates
  • Neel Mani Sharma