HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 39914 of 2019
Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dhanni
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 16.9.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1733 of 2017 (SectionState vs/ Brahmlata and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, Section406 and Section377 IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Medical College, district Meerut.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party No. 2. It is also submitted that in this case first information report was lodged on 12.5.2016 under Sections 498-A, Section377, Section34, Section354(B) IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohbition Act against the applicant and eleven other co-accused persons, who are the family members of the applicant, but the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet only against the applicant and his mother for the offence under Sections 498-A, Section406 IPC and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, in which applicant has been granted bail by the concerned court in January, 2017 and did not misuse the liberty of the same.Thereafter, on the application moved by opposite party No. 2, Smt. Shweta Verma, Section 377 IPC has also been added during the course of trial.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also pointed out that in the trial statement of opposite party No. 2 has been recorded.
After advancing certain arguments at length by learned counsel for the applicant, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.9.2019 and entire proceedings against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.
Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail under Section 377 IPC, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law keeping in view of the Seven Judges’ decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.; (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437.
For the period of 30 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.11.2019