SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dilshad @ Boone & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 7 November, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 12

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 7873 of 2019

Applicant :- Dilshad @ Boone Anr.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 862 of 2019,State Versus Dilshad @ Boone, arising out in Case Crime No. 88 of 2018, under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 I.P.C. 3/4 of SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Khodare, District Gonda pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda as well as impugned chargesheet no.1 of 2018 dated 11.11.2018 (Annexure-1) submitted by the investigating officer in the aforesaid case crime number against the petitioners and impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in respect of petitioners only.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

From the perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the petitioners.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

However, it is observed that in case the petitioners surrender and apply for bail within two months 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). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, namely, Dilshad @ Boone and Naseem Mahto.

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 7.11.2019

OP

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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