SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parshuram Prajapati And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 180 of 2020

Applicant :- Parshuram Prajapati And 4 Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat

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 dated 26.11.2019 passed by C.J.M, Mahoba in complaint case No. 1805 of 2019, Smt. Rekha Vs. Parshuram and others, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba.

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R. it is alleged that O.P. No.2 was married to the applicant no.1 on 29.6,2017, however, after marriage the applicant started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants used to torture and maltreat her and beaten her and also has turned her out of her matrimonial home and the applicant no. 2 also tried to outrage her modesty.

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

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 applicants. 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 is refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and 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 judgment 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 and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 6.1.2020

R

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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