HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1641 of 2019
Applicant :- Prashant @ Prashant Soni And 5 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)
Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.09.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0018 of 2018 and proceedings of criminal case no. 13321 of 2018 (State Vs. Prashant Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, Section323, Section506 IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Marhara, District -Etah pending in the court of C.J.M., Etah.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that vide order dated 8.2.2019 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation on the request of applicants subject to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within two weeks, but the said amount has not been deposited by the applicants. As per report dated 21.05.2019 of the Mediation Centre, applicants have not complied with the order dated 8.2.2019 of this Court, therefore, notices were not sent to the parties by the Mediation Centre.
Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 respectively and they have already been granted bail by the concerned court below. He further submitted that applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are married sisters-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and they are not on bail.
After advancing certain arguments at some length by the learned counsel for the applicants, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet dated 03.09.2018 against the applicants and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the applicants 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 nos. 4, 5 and 6 expeditiously in accordance with law.
The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy to move discharge application before the concerned court below at the appropriate stage.
In view of above, the relief as sought by the applicants in the instant application is refused.
Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case applicants namely Roopa, Alka and Deepaka appear before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants, namely Roopa, Alka and Deepaka 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 45 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicants, namely Roopa, Alka and Deepaka before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019