Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28283 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the summoning order dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint Case No. 886 of 2018 (jay Nardev vs. Sandeep), under Section 406 of IPC, P.S. Jaithara, District Etah, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17 Etah.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of the sister of applicants was solemnized with opposite party no.2 but she was harassed by opposite party no.2 and his family members for demand of dowry and she has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2. It has been argued that impugned order and proceedings have been instituted as a counterblast of the same. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the order of the learned Magistrate by contending that the order is well reasoned.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that in case, the applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court. For a period of one month and in case application for discharge is filed within the period prescribed, till disposal of such discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
A. Tripathi