Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16950 of 2017
Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Alias Amit Kumar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Pandey,Avanish Pratap Singh,Udai Bhan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Sri Avanish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and leaned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Present 482 application has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.2.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1028 of 2016 (Jaya Vs. Umesh Kumar @ Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Hathras, District Hathras pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
3. Though mediation has failed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, the matter is being proceeded with.
4. On merits it has been submitted by counsel for the applicants that arising from bad matrimonial relationship between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, wholly false and frivolous allegations have been made in the complaint as to the demand of dowry, cruelty etc. However, it has been submitted that there was no real incident and no offence committed by the applicants.
5. Opposing the present application, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that from a bare perusal of the complaint and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the ingredients of offence alleged are made out. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present case.
6. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, in so far as allegation against the applicants no. 1 and 2 are concerned, the same appear to be specific as to the demand of dowry and also cruelty practised upon such demand being not satisfied. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the complaint made on behalf of applicants no. 1 and 2 is declined.
7. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants no. 1 and 2 appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
8. For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants no. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid case.
9. In so far as the applicant no. 3 is concerned, though allegations against her were also similar, however, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 informs that the said applicant had since died. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed with respect to applicant no. 3, the proceedings having been abated.
10. In so far as the applicant no. 4 is concerned, she has not been summoned by the court below, therefore, application filed on her behalf is misconceived.
11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Meenu