Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2045 (ALL)

Baljeet v. State of U. P.

2016-05-26

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 1809 of 2014 (State Vs. Baljeet) and cognizance order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the A.C.J.M-IInd, Meerut arising out of charge sheet dated 20.3.2006 in case crime no. 70 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Daurala, district Meerut. Further prayer has been made to stay proceedings of the aforesaid case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that parties have settled their dispute. Marriage has been dissolved taking recourse to Section 14-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Other criminal prosecution pending between the parties has also come to an end. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer. 6. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 prayer made in the application is refused. 7. However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 8. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.