Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3975 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-12-09

BACHCHOO LAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Bachchoo Lal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.11.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.2160 of 2016 (Smt. Shikha vs. Manoj Kumar ans others) by which the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It has further been submitted that from the version of complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid section is not made out against the applicant. The marriage of applicant was solemnized with opposite party no.2 Smt. Shikha on 09.03.2000. There was no disputed of demand of dowry. False allegation has been made against the applicant. The impugned order suffers from illegality or infirmity. On the other hand learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicant has been summoned on the basis of statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. I do not find any ground to set aside the impugned order, therefore, the prayer for setting aside the impugned order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.