Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16273 of 2017 Applicant :- Prasoon Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today. Taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Rajeev Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Criminal Complaint Case No. 720/2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ali Nagar, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits, arising from the matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, wholly vague and general allegations have been made against all the applicants. Perusal of the complaint would reveal that opposite party no.2 herself declared to have married the present applicant no.1 in the year 2014 and from that marriage, one boy child has also been born. Also, there is narration that the parties had parted company but they again came together in the year 2015. Thus, it has been submitted, present is a case of pure matrimonial discord which has been given a colour of the criminal prosecution.
5. Opposing the present application, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, on the other hand submits, present is a case which has a long history of dispute. The applicant no.1 has filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights wherein opposite party no.2 had consented to live with the applicant no.1 where after, the said applicant withdrew those proceedings. Also, a proceeding for divorce appears to have been filed by the applicant no.1 which had also been dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint, while specific allegations appears to have been made against applicant no.1 of demand of dowry and cruelty, however, insofar as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, allegations made against them are general and vague. Further, from the own admission of the opposite party no.2, with respect to the institution of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and of divorce by the applicant no.1, it does appear that the allegations against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are wholly vague and general.
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. 2 and 3 is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3.
9. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, the relief for quashing the proceeding against him in the aforesaid case, is declined.
10. However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1.
11. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of in respect of applicant no. 1.
Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Prakhar