Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3007 (ALL)

Bilal v. State of U. P.

2015-09-21

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Bal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Rana, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1361 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 738 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar and the charge-sheet dated 4.7.2015 submitted in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 2013. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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 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. 6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. 7. However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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. 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. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 9. It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.