Allahabad High Court
Kurvan And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6763 of 2019
Applicant :- Kurvan And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 11, Agra in Complaint Case No. 1315 of 2015 (Madina Vs. Kurvan & others) along with summoning order dated 2.12.2014 under section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lohamandi, District Agra.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no. 1 is husband of O.P. No. 2. Applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2 who is old lady aged about 72 years and applicant no. 3 is Jeth of O.P. No. 2 who is living separate from applicant no. 1. There was no dispute of demand of dowry and the applicants have not harassed or tortured to the O.P. No. 2. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 2.12.2014 is not in accordance with law. The applicants have moved an application U/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge and the same was rejected by the court below. The order of court below dated 1.11.2018 is also not in accordance with law.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint it has been mentioned that applicants have harassed and tortured to O.P. No. 2/complainant due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The learned Magistrate after finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under section 498A and 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Admittedly the applicant no. 1 is husband and applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law and applicant no. 3 is Jeth of O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 in her complaint has made allegation against the applicants. At this stage there is no ground to discharge the applicants. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has rejected the discharge application of the applicants vide order dated 1.11.2018. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
A perusal of the record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial under section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act vide order dated 2.12.2014. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants have moved an application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge which was rejected by the Magistrate concerned. The O.P. No. 2 in her complaint as well as in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has made allegation for demand of dowry against the applicants and it has further been mentioned that applicants have harassed and tortured to her and committed marpit with her also threatened to her. The summoning order is based on the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record has rejected the discharge application of the applicants moved under section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 2.12.2014 and the order dated 1.11.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019
Masarrat
