Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1047 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-04-01

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This is an application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing the proceeding of complaint no. 1757 of 2012, arising out of case crime no.508 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnore pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, District Bijnore. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the daughter of the applicant no.3 was married with the son of complainant-opposite party no.2. She was being tortured since demand of dowry was not fulfilled. She lodged an F.I.R. against opposite party no.2 and his other family members, and as soon as the said F.I.R. was lodged the present complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 just to harrass the applicants and to put the due pressure. Since the proceeding is malicious, as such same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. After investigation final report was submitted thereafter on protest petition the learned Magistrate has proceeded with the case as a complaint case and the applicants have been summoned. Hence, no interference is required at this initial stage u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 6. However, if discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants within 30 days from today through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously, at appropriate stage in accordance with law. 7. Till the disposal of the discharge application, further proceeding against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. 8. However, if the discharge application is rejected, applicants shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day in view of the principle laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. If the bail application could not be decided on the same day then applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. 9. With these observations, present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.