Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4152 (ALL)

Mohd. Anas v. State of U. P.

2015-12-23

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad holding brief of Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.K. Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No. 13 of 2014 dated 18.7.2014 in Case No. 14141 of 2015, (State Vs. Mohd. Anas and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2013, under Sections 323, 417, 498-A I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Line, District Aligarh and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 6.10.2015 passed by C.J.M., Aligarh. 3. The marriage between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized about 14 years ago. 4. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 5. The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no.1, namely, Mohd. Anas is hereby refused. 6. However, it is directed that in case the applicant 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. 7. 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. 8. So far as applicant no. 2 is 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 her is wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against her. 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. 9. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. 10. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. 9. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. 10. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. 11. 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. 12. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench. 13. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicant no. 2, namely, Smt. Akila Begum shall remain stayed.