HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 43064 of 2019
Applicant :- Lekhraj And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the summoning order dt. 12.7.2019 passed by Ist A.C.J.M, Amroha as well as entire proceeding of complaint Case No. 2626 of 2018, Smt. Vibha alias Beby Vs. Lekhraj others, under Sectionsection 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana, District Amroha.
As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that the O.P. No.2 was married to the applicant no.1 20.4.2016, however, after marriage the applicant started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicant used to torture and maltreat her and also has turned her out of her matrimonial home.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malfide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are Jeth and Jethani of O.P. No.2 and they have no concern with the day today affairs of the husband and his wife, O.P. No.2 and the allegations against them also are false and frivolous and they have been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of being Jeth and Jethani of O.P. No.2.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant nos.,1 and 4. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceeding so far as applicant nos. 1 and 4 is concerned, is refused.
So far as applicant no. 2 and 3, Kavindra Singh and Smt. Arti, who are Jeth and Jethani of O.P. No.2 are concerned, the proceedings of complaint case No. 2626 of 2018, Smt. Vibha alias Beby Vs. Lekhraj others, under Sectionsection 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana, District Amroha, pending in the court of Ist A.C.J.M. Amroha shall remain stayed.
Issue notice to O.P No.2 to file counter affidavit within four weeks.
List on 13.1.2020.
So far as applicant nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of SectionAmrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicants surrender/apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 1 and . However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019