Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Yadav And 5 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46554 of 2019
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Dubey,Vipul Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
Pursuant to the earlier order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17th December, 2019, the matter has been referred for mediation before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. As per the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 21.03.2021, the mediation has failed. Hence this Court is proceeding to decide the present case on merit.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the Charge sheet dated 27.09.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.90 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kandharapur, District-Azamgarh as well as is consequential proceeding of Case No.13589 of 2018 (State vs. Stantosh Kumar Yadav and others) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10 Azamgarh.
As per allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 was married to applicant no.1 (husband) in the year 2010, however, after the said marriage, the applicants No.1 and his family members (applicant Nos.2 to 6) started demanding additional dowry from Opposite Party No.2 and for non-fulfillment of additional dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and have beaten her.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malfide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned order cannot be quashed.
From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant nos.1 and 4 i.e. husband and father-in-law respectively. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order is refused.
The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed in respect of applicant nos.1 and 4.
However, it is directed that if the applicant nos. 1 and 4 appear/surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicant Nos. 1 and 4 surrender/apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant Nos.1 and 4. However, in case, the applicant Nos. 1 and 4 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the applicant nos.2 and 3 are brothers-in-law, and applicant Nos.5 and 6 are sisters-in-law of opposite party No.2 and they have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs between the applicant no.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 and the allegations against them are false and frivolous.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the Opposite Party No.2 to file counter affidavit returnable within four weeks.
List on 18.10.2021.
Insofar as applicant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, till then, further proceedings of Case Crime No.90 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kandharapur, District-Azamgarh as well as is consequential proceeding of Case No.13589 of 2018 (State vs. Stantosh Kumar Yadav and others) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10 Azamgarh, shall remain stayed against them.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021
Pr/-
