Court No. - 15
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5531 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nanak Chand And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Harsh Vijay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2018 by which the revision has been rejected and the order of the trial court has been confirmed, as well as the order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut in Criminal Complaint Case No.4138 of 2017 (Smt. Jyoti vs. Arvind and others) under section 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was performed with the son of the petitioners in the year 2015 and since thereafter the petitioners are living separately from the husband of the opposite party no. 2. They have been falsely implicated. No demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was made nor any injuries have been caused to the opposite party no. 2 by them. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned orders.
A perusal of the complaint shows that the accused-petitioners have demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and for non-fulfillment of the same, the opposite party no. 2 has been beaten up and she has received several injuries The injury memo is on record. In support of the said complaint, the complainant and other witnesses have been examined by the court below Therefore the statement recorded by the court below cannot be disbelieved at this stage as the same would require trial.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for setting aside the impugned orders is refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioners be considered and decided in view of the 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 AU