Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 411 (ALL)

Banwari Lal v. State of U. P.

2017-02-03

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT BachchooLal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.09.2016 and the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Aligarh and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh respectivelyin Criminal Revision No. 786 of 2016 and in Case No. 3391 of 2015 (Poonam Vs. Banwari Lal and others) under sections 323, 406 IPC, P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of applicant no. 1 Banwari Lal was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 03.03.2014. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicants have not harassed and tortured the opposite party no. 2. No offence is made out agianst the applicants. False story has been concocted by the opposite party no. 2. The summoning order dated 15.09.2016 is not in accordance with law. Against the summoning order dated 15.09.2016, the applicants have filed a Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2016 which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge concerned vide order dated 01.12.2016. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and he summarily dismissed the revision of the applicants. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Against the summoning order dated 15.09.2016, the applicants have filed a Criminal Revision which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge concerned on 01.12.2016. There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Courts below. A perusal of the record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Against the summoning order dated 15.09.2016, the applicants have preferred a Criminal Revision which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge concerned vide order dated 01.12.2016. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the courts below. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the courts below. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal KamlendraPratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.