Allahabad High Court
Mohd Qamar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 June, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:103225
Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17588 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Qamar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicants are family members of matrimonial home of opposite party no.2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
So far as the husband-applicant no.1, namely, Mohd Qamar is concerned following orders is being passed:-
From the 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 applicants. 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 only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as applicant no.1 is concerned.
However, in case, the applicant no.1 does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
So far as the applicant nos.2 to 3 are concerned the following order is being passed:-
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.563 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Mohd Qamar and others) (in Case Crime No.0166 of 2020), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly as well as cognizance order dated 14.06.2021 and charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, shall remain stayed against the applicant nos. 2 to 3.
Order Date :- 11.6.2024
SP/-
