SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2020


?Court No. – 29

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 7585 of 2020

Applicant :- Bahadur

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Chitranshu Srivastav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.12.2015, passed by A.C.J.M., 2nd, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2015 (Smt. Somvati vs. Bahadur and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier a complaint was filed by the daughter of applicant making allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the opposite party no. 2 and other family members. As a counter blast of which, an application was also filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and other family members alleging that they have taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- from her and the same was not returned by them and when she insisted on the relevant time and date, the accused came to her house, abused her and committed maar-peet in the presence of the witnesses. The complaint version was supported by the complainant and her two other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after finding sufficient evidence for making a prima-facie case under Section 406 I.P.C., the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant for the aforesaid offence.

It appears that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of evidence on record and at this stage, in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the factual controversy cannot be determined. When the impugned order has been passed on the basis of evidence on record, it can hardly be said that there is any abuse of the process of the court.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any force in the application and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The application is dismissed with observation that if within 30 days from today, the applicant appears before the court below and file bail application, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law, keeping in mind that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute between the parties.

For the above period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, it is made clear that the above 30 days period shall not be extended on any ground, whatsoever.

Order Date :- 24.2.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation