Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 653 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar Verma v. State of U. P.

2015-03-31

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan,J. Heard Sri Raghuraj Singh Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief for Sri Sanjay Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed against the summoning order dated 11.7.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in complaint case no.374 of 2014 under Sections 498-A,323, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mugal Sarain, District Chandauli as well as against the non bailable warrant order dated 29.1.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. 3. It appears that a criminal complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 alleging that his daughter Manisha Verma has been mal treated on account of non fulfilment of additional dowry demand. The Magistrate conducted an inquiry wherein statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and witnesses summoned the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 498-A,323, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This order, issuance of non bailable warrant and entire criminal proceedings are under challenge before this Court. 4. The contention of the 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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 4 82 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. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 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. 6. The prayer for quashing of proceedings is refused. 7. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 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. 6. The prayer for quashing of proceedings is refused. 7. However, it is provided that if 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. 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. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.