Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22149 of 2017
Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case no. 5052 of 2016, (Smt. Reena vs. Sandeep Kumar and others) and summoning order dated 7.11.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 2nd/ A.C.J.M., Saharanpur, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of personal grudge by the opposite party no.2; no demand of dowry was ever made by the applicants and the opposite party no.2 with malicious intention had filed complaint against all family members on general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that there are allegations of demand of dowry and ill-treating to opposite party no. 2 against the husband, applicant no. 1 and applicant nos. 2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The mediation between the parties has already failed.
So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely, Sandeep Kumar is concerned, following order is being passed:-
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding and order is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.
So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegations made against them are vague and general in nature, there are no specific allegation in this regard or for ill-treatment and harassing the complainant, there are no detail particulars given in the complaint and the statement recorded u/s 200, 202 Cr.P.C. about the participation or role played by the applicant nos. 2 and 3. In my considered opinion, the allegations against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are distinguishable from that of applicant no. 1 against whom specific allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been made.
Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially nature of allegation made against the applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are aged father and mother-in-law of the complainant, I deem it fit to exercise power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3.
The present application is partly allowed. The entire proceeding of the aforesaid case so far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, is quashed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Dhirendra/