Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2601 (ALL)

Sagir Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2015-08-25

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 , Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint case No. 1487 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mohabbatpur Painsa, district Kaushambi and also to quash the summoning order dated 16.2.2015 passed in the aforesaid case, which is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. 3. Vide earlier order of this Court dated 14.5.2015 the matter was referred to mediation centre and the report of the mediation centre dated 30.7.2015 is on record which shows that no agreement could take place between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that it is a no injury case and the applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanand) of the opposite party No. 2, who have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 states that husband of the opposite party No. 2 is residing abroad and the opposite party No. 2 is staying with the applicants, who used to torture the opposite party No. 2 and demand additional dowry and reference in this regard has been made to paragraph-3 of the complaint. 6. 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is refused. 8. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 2 and 3, who are ladies, may be considered and decided, if possible, on same day and the bail application of the applicant No. 1 may 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.