Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3004 (ALL)

Umesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-09-21

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Power of Ms. Shivangi Bhargava on behalf of the informant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.1149/9 of 2014, under Sections 420/504/506 IPC, P.S. Amroha Nagar, Amroha, pendign in the court of Addl. Civil Judge -II (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar, Amroha. 4. It is submitted that daughter of applicant no.1 and sister of applicant nos. 2 & 3 is married to the son of O.P. No.2, but on account of marital discord between the couple, the wife lodged an FIR on 11.6.2014 as Case Crime No.283/2014, under Sections 323/324/504/506 IPC against her husband and his relatives in which a charge-sheet was submitted on 1.11.2014, but in retaliation thereto, the O.P. No.2 filed the above complaint on 16.6.2014 on false and baseless allegations only with a view to harass the applicants, which being an abuse of the process of the Court is liable to be quashed. 5. 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 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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283. 6. The prayer is refused. 7. However, it is directed that if applicant(s) appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously 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. 8. 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. 8. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicant(s) surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant(s). However, in case, the applicant(s) 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.