Satish And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2013 Latest Caselaw 3670 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21197 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- Satish And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Krishna Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard SriBal Krishna Pandey, 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  including the order dated 2.4.2013 of Complaint Case No.1298 of  2012 (Smt. Priti Vs. Satish and others), under Sections 406 I.P.C.  police station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court  No.1, Bulandshahr.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage between the applicant with opp. party No.2 was solemnized in the year 2007 and  she has initiated proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc. against the applicant No.1 along with her parents in which they are facing criminal prosecution, hence the present complaint claiming Stridhan from the parents  is not justified as the husband is at the most responsible for not returning the Stridhan to the wife.

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 no.1, Satish (husband) is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.

The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no.1 is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that in case the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 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 and 3, namely, Sahab Singh and Smt. Kanti Devi are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the  parents of applicant No.1  and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them.

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 and 3, namely, Sahab Singh and Smt. Kanti Devi.

Order Date :- 4.7.2013

NS