Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3673 (ALL)

Nirmal Devi v. State Of U. P.

2009-12-07

SURENDRA SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 24.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Sultanpur and further proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.569 of 2007 (Smt. Annapuran Versus Santosh Kumar and others), Under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ? of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. 5. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the courts below within 3 weeks from today and applies for bail, then her prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. 5. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the courts below within 3 weeks from today and applies for bail, then her prayer for bail shall be considered 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 (affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the case of Sukhwant Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009 Vol.VII, SCC 559,taking into account that the applicant is a lady and giving her benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. For a period of 3 weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However in case the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, it will be open to the courts below to adopt appropriate recourse of law against the applicant. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the application is finally disposed of.