Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 77 of 2021 Applicant :- Tarun Arora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Jawahir Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anoop Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.09.2018 and summoning order dated 26.10.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2938 of 2018 (State vs. Pankaj & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. Earlier an Application U/s 482 No. 12440 of 2019 was filed by the applicant and others, in which, the following order was passed on 08.04.2019:-
"Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 7.9.2018 in Case No. 2938 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2018, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (State v. Tarun Arora and others), Police Station Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
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 by the opposite party No.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(1) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely Tarun Arora is concerned following orders 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 submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings 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 Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail which ever is earlier, 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, so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned this application is finally disposed off."
So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following order is being passed :-
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks.
Learned AGA prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two weeks thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 2 and 3, in the aforesaid case."
Without complying with the aforesaid directions, so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been again filed by the applicant- Tarun Arora with the same prayer. However, in para nos. 9 to 11, it has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Since earlier order of this Court has not been complied with and there is no whisper in the application as to whether the applicant- Tarun Arora has surrendered before the concerned court below and the compromise entered into between the parties much after one year of the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in earlier application U/s 482 No. 12440 of 2019 (Tarun Arora And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another). Therefore, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with liberty to file fresh.
In view of the aforesaid, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the same criminal case is not maintainable and is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 JK Yadav