Hari Shankar Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 237 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11356 of 2015
 
Applicant :- Hari Shankar Gupta And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- C.P. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 864 of 2014-Seema Devi Vs. Hari Shankar & Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 505, 506 I.P.C., and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending before the A.C.J.M., District Jaunpur along with summoning order dated 16.01.2015 passed by A.C.J.M. III, Jaunpur.

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 the applicant no. 1 (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 to 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no. 1 and the allegations 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 the applicant nos. 2 to 3.

This matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.

Order Date :- 30.4.2015/Arun K. Singh