HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 43038 of 2019
Applicant :- Rahul Tripathi And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Harsh Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 633 of 2019 (Smt Manjula Devi Vs. Rahul Tripathi and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Rajapur, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of C.J.M, Chitrakoot.
As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that the sister of O.P. No.2 was married to the applicant, on 27.4.2018, 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.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants no. 2 to 5 have already been released on bail.
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 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 them. 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 only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 SectionCr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
in view of above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case in respect of applicants no. 2 to 5 is refused.
So far as applicant no. 1, Rahul Tripathi is concerned, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019