Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Saeed Siddique vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171601
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28652 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Saeed Siddique
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1598 of 2022 (State Vs. Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 494 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Fatehganj East, District- Bareilly including the charge-sheet dated 17.01.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2 and on perusal of FIR, no offence under alleged Section is made out. He further submitted that statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not supporting the prosecution case. All allegations made against the applicant are with mala fide intention and only to harass the applicant. He next submitted that the cognizance of offence under section 494 I.P.C. cannot be taken as Police case. Same would be lodged as complaint case. He next submtited that in para-19 of the affidavit, it is stated that on perusal of entire prosecution, it is clear that there is dispute between husband and wife because the Opposite Party No. 2 residing at her parental house since long time. Opposite party no. 2 never performed her conjugal duties and applicant has pointed out various documents in support of his argument.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and stated that proceeding under Section 494 I.P.C. has been initiated alongwith Sections 498, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid Sections and this submission of the counsel for the applicant is disputed question of fact and it cannot be examined at this stage.
5. Considering the submissions raised by counsel for the applicant, and perusal of the entire record, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant and the cognizance taken by learned Magistrate is just and proper and in view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference is warranted in the present case.
6. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant, namely, Mohd. Saeed Siddique, appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously.
8. For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant, namely, Mohd. Saeed Siddique, in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Anjali
