HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 41 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1648 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mohd.Aaftab Rayeen And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,J.K.S.Yadav Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
As jointly pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, the mediation between the parties failed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 102 of 2010 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First), Ghazipur.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, 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 Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 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. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. The interim order is vacated.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the courts below within 3 weeks from today and applies for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered 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 (affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.),. For a period of 3 weeks 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 do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.9.2011 MN/-