Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43232 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Charan And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 28.09.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 223 of 2019 (Sushma Devi Vs. Ramcharan and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pakshim Sharira, District Kaushambi.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 was married to applicant no.1 about 6- 7 years back, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for the non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, started harassing, torturing and maltreating her and she was also threatened to kill by setting her on fire and also turned out of her matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. 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 observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Nadim