HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 19079 of 2019
Applicant :- Ajesh Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap
Hon’ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of complaint case no.2396 of 2018 (Smt. Chhaya Devi vs. Ajesh Kumar and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Fatehabad, District Agra, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra and summoning order dated 08.04.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra.
As per allegations made in the complaint, the marriage of applicant no.1 has been solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 07.03.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals, and since then, the applicant no.1 along with other family members harassing and pressuring the opposite party no.2 in connection with demand of dowry to the extend of rupees five lakhs and a car. On non fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the opposite party no.2 were beaten by her in-laws and other family members. Various allegations have also been made as regards the harassment meted out to the opposite party no.2. It is also alleged that opposite party no.2 is residing at her parental house.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the matter relates to the matrimonial case and the applicant and his family members never demanded any type of dowry and never harassed or assaulted to the opposite party no.2. But only for harassing to the applicants, the opposite party no.2 had illegally filed the complaint against the applicant and his family members. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the applicants.
Per-contra learned AGA contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court.
Having gone through the allegations contained in the complaint and other documents, I am of the view that at this stage, it cannot be said that the commission of the cognizable offence is not made or there is any error legal or otherwise in the order passed by the court below against the applicants.
The allegation being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no finding can be recorded about veracity of the allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence.
In Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 6 SCC 107 decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under:
“15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.” (emphasis added)
Accordingly, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned proceeding passed by the trial court.
In the result, the instant applicant stands dismissed summarily.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another vs. State of U.P. and other reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants filed their bail applications, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason, it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decide on the same.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be adopted against the applicants.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020