Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23554 of 2014
Applicant :- Smt. Neha Agrawal And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dharmendra Kumar
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2004 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.9 as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2367 of 2013 under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that accused applicants have been falsely implicated in this case by O.P. No.2 in retaliation because earlier a Case Crime No. 515 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 307, 506 and 3/4 D.P. Act was slapped against O.P. No.2 and his family members wherein they have been summoned and trial of the same is still pending. Another case has been filed by the accused applicant no. 1 against O.P. No.2 is under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is also pending and third case which has been initiated by applicant against O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. The said case is also pending. Because of these three cases, O.P. No. 2 has initiated the present case against the applicant. There is no sufficient evidence against the accused applicants to be summoned and the trial court has erroneously passed the order of summoning, hence the same needs to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing stating that the two children, born out of the wedlock are staying with him; the proceeding under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act which was initiated by accused applicant no. 1 has already been dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2015, order of which has been annexed at page no. 15 of Counter-Affidavit. There is enough evidence available on record to establish that the accused applicants have committed offence under the above-mentioned sections.
I have gone through the complaint.
In complaint, it is recorded that O.P. No.2 has married with accused applicant No.1 eight years ago and two children were born out of the wedlock. The applicant no. 1 had started indulging in unethical activities regarding which, she was counselled a lot but she would not refrain from indulging in those activities and used to indulge in abusing family members of O.P. No.2 on petty things. On 6.11.2010, all the accused applicants had entered the house of O.P. No.2 and had taken away jewellery which is mentioned therein which was given at the time of marriage. Again on 11.10.2012 at about 11'O clock, all the accused had come with some unknown persons inside the house of O.P. No.2 and started abusing O.P. No.2 and his family members saying that if O.P. No.2 does not give divorce, the whole family would be got implicated in a false case; the accused applicants had left the house of O.P. No.2 leaving behind two children. Applicant No.1 is not ready to return the jewellery which was given by family of O.P. No.2. After having recorded the statements of the O.P. No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which they have supported the complaint version, the trial court has summoned the accused applicants under the above- mentioned sections. It cannot be disbelieved at this stage as to whether such kind of incident happened or not as it would require trial.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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 applicants. 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, 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 quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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. 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
A. Mandhani