Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 562 (ALL)

Dilshad Ali v. State of U. P.

2014-02-17

MANOJ MISRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta-II for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By the present application, the applicants have sought for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.195 of 2013, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District Fatehpur. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no.2, whereas the applicant nos.2 and 3 are the Jeth and the applicant no.4 is the Jethani. It has been submitted that, according to the complaint case, the marriage took place on 16.06.2007. There are general allegations against the applicants. It has been submitted that the complaint has been lodged with delay disclosing an incident of two days prior to Bakrid in which Akbar (non-applicant) has been said to have abused and threatened the complainant along with Julekha. In that incident, the participation of the applicant no.1, who is the husband of the opposite party no.2, is also shown. It has been submitted that there is no specific allegations against the applicant no.2 (Parsadi) and the applicant no.3 (Kamal). 4. Considering the allegations made in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., a prima face case is made out to proceed against the applicant nos.1 and 4, therefore, the proceedings as against the applicant nos.1 and 4 cannot be quashed. 5. However, considering that specific allegations have not been made against the applicant nos.2 and 3, the application of the applicant nos.2 and 3 is entertained. 6. Sri R.C. Gupta, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2, prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter. 7. List this application for further orders immediately after expiry of four weeks. 8. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No.195 of 2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District Fatehpur, shall remain stayed as against the applicant no.2 (Parsadi) and the applicant no.3 (Kamal) only. 9. The court will be at liberty to proceed against the other accused. 10. 9. The court will be at liberty to proceed against the other accused. 10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that if the applicant no.1 and 4 appear before the court concerned and apply for bail, within a period of four weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered in accordance with law laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.: 2004(57) ALR 290, decided by a Full Bench of this Court, which has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.: 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC).