Allahabad High Court
Sudhir Shukla Husband And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3014 of 2016
Applicant :- Sudhir Shukla Husband And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Poonam Srivastava
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.10.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Chhibramau, Kannauj alongwith entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 270 of 2015 (Pooja Shukla Vs. Sudhir Shukla) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police station Chhibramau, District Kannauj pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, District Kannauj. Further prayer has been made to stay the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
Vide order dated 03.02.2016, matter was referred to the Mediation and Canciliation Centre of this Court. Report submitted by Mediation Centre reveals that mediation was not successful.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that although applicant nos. 2 & 3 have obtained bail yet they are old age person. No specific role has been assigned to attract the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicants. If entire case is taken into consideration then also applicant no. 1, who is the husband of opposite party no. 2 may be held responsible for the aforesaid offences. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that a prima facie case is made out against all the applicants and they were involved in committing the offence levelled against them. Specific allegations have also been levelled against them. A prima facie case is made out. Proceeding of aforesaid complaint case cannot be quashed against the opposite party no. 2.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, specific allegations have been levelled against all the applicants regarding demand of dowry, causing cruelty and harassment, the same has been supported in the statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C.. If such is the position, summoning order passed against the applicants at this stage, cannot be termed to be illegal. The court dealing with the matter, at this stage, has to see only a prima facie case. From the perusal of entire evidence, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. There is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Application being devoid of merits is not liable to be allowed.
Thus, the prayer made in the present application is hereby refused.
However, applicant no. 1 Sudhir Shukla is hereby directed to surrender before the court concerned within thirty days from today. During that period, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 1 Sudhir Shukla.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
Sanjeet
