Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8393 of 2018 Applicant :- Shobhit Dixit @ Ravi And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Tondon
Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankur Tondon, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 and Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide earlier order dated 09.04.2018, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre. The report of Mediation Centre dated 16.07.2018 is already on record, shows that the mediation has failed.
The present application has been filed for quashing entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3430 of 2018 (State Vs. Shobhit Dixit and Others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar arising out of charge sheet in Case Crime No. 897 of 2017 and cognisance order dated 27.01.2018.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the complaint case has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
Prayer for quashing the proceedings of the case has opposed by the learned AGA for the State by submitting that there are specific allegations against the applicants and there is no ground for quashing the proceedings.
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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of 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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of aforesaid complaint case, is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail may be considered in view of the settled law. 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 fail to appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, interim order shall stand vacated.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
(V.P. Vaish, J.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Amit Mishra