Lavkush And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 460 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12570 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Lavkush And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajendra Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the   criminal proceedings in Case No.23 of 2015 under Sections  498-A, 323  I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Pilua, District- Etah arising out of Case Crime No.171 of 2013 pending  in the court of learned  A.C.J.M. Court No.20 Etah.

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 (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 surrender 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 5 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 to5.

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

Order Date :- 8.5.2015

SB