Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1067 (ALL)

Atul Vishwakarma v. State of U. P.

2014-04-02

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 Crl. Misc. application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.4006 of 2012, under section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi including the summoning order dated 10.1.2013 passed by learned C.J.M., Kaushambi and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is matrimonial dispute. There was no injury, however, complaint was lodged on the basis of false allegation hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. 6. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 7. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. However, if discharge application is rejected, applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in 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 . 9. With these observations, the present application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.