Allahabad High Court
Bablu And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2013
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20497 of 2013
Applicant :- Babloo And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar,learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2445 of 2012 (Rajendri Vs. Babloo and others), under Sections 498-A, 323,493 I.P.C., police station Mandi Dhamora, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, J.P. Nagar (Amroha) and set aside the summoning order dated 21.2.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist,J.P. Nagar (Amroha).
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage between the son of applicnat Nos.5 namely, Sanjeev Kumar and opposite party no.2 was solemnized eight years ago.He further submits that admittedly, the husband of opp. party No.2 has died unnatural death.
After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that so far as applicant nos.1 and 5, namely, Babloo (devar) and Ratiram (father-in-law) of opp. party No.2 are concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant nos.1 and 5, namely, Babloo (devar) and Ratiram (father-in-law) is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the nos.1 and 5, namely, Babloo (devar) and Ratiram (father-in-law) appear and surrender before the court below within 30 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.
It is made clear that the applicant no.1 and 5 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
So far as applicant nos.2,3,4 &6, namely, Jagjeevan, Rajveer, Jauwati and Rajpal are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against applicant nos.2,3,4 &6, namely, Jagjeevan, Rajveer, Jauwati and Rajpal.
Order Date :- 2.7.2013
NS
