Shamim And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 3493 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38802 of 2018
 

 
Applicants :- Shamim And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Tewari,Arvind Kumar Tewari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA representing the State and perused the record of the case.

By means of this application under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 774 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the summoning order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that initially an FIR was lodged in which after investigation final report was submitted. On a protest petition being filed, learned Magistrate treated the same as complaint and after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that impugned order has been passed without application of mind.

Per contra, learned AGA supported the order of the learned Magistrate by contending that the order is well reasoned.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

The disputed defence of the accused also cannot be considered at this stage.

The prayer for quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order is refused.

The application is accordingly rejected.

However, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within three weeks and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 1.11.2018

Ishrat