Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25016 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Braj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 19.5.2018 passed by the learned Session Judge, Etah in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2017 (Ram Braj and another Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) and order dated 7.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case No. 1138 of 2015 (Ram Naresh Vs. Ram Brij and Anr.), under Section 406 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Piluwa, District Etah.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that as per allegation in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 had fixed marriage of his daughter with applicant no. 1 in the year 2014. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was asked by the applicant nos. 1 & 2 to meet out the expenses of marriage of sister of the accused-applicant no. 1. The said amount was given in cash later on applicants refused to marry with daughter of O.P. No.2 due to demand of dowry of Rs. 3,50,000/- and a Motor Cycle. It is argued that no such demand was made and the version that Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by O.P. no.2 for marriage of sister of applicant no.1 is also concocted. No case under Section 406 IPC or 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is made out.
Since the evidence has been recorded by the trial court and thereafter the revisional court had found the said evidence to be sufficient enough to constitute prima facie case under the aforementioned Sections, hence at this stage, in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the statements recorded by police cannot be dis- believed without 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, 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 :- 23.8.2018
A.P. Pandey