Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (ALL)

Roop Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-02-18

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha,J.: - Heard Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Charge Sheet No.82/13 dated 23-07-13 in Case No.28/2014, State Versus Roop Singh and others, in Case Crime No.112/2013, Under Sections 498-A, 494 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Aligarh. 3. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record, I find that applicant no.1 is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case. 4. The marriage of the applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized in the year 2010. The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no.1, namely, Roop Singh is hereby refused. 5. However, it is directed that in case the petitioner no.1 appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 6. It is made clear that the applicant no.1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. 7. So far as petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. 8. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. 9. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. 8. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. 9. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks. 10. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench. 11. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against applicant nos. 2 and 3 only.