SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rahul Verma And 5 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 35141 of 2018

Applicant :- Rahul Verma And 5 Ors

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Singh Yadav

Hon’ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for State, and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings along with summoning order dated 14.9.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No.1124 of 2018, under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 with absolutely false and incorrect allegations, in which applicants have been summoned by Magistrate; that it is wrong to say that applicant no.2, the father-in-law ever behaved with opposite party no.2 in obscene manner or on 13.8.2018 all the accused-persons living at Shahjahanpur came to Farrukhabad and threatened opposite party no.2 of life; that the entire story mentioned in complaint is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicants or any of them did neither make any demand of dowry nor approached the house of opposite party no.2 on 13.8.2018 nor caused injuries to her nor threatened him or her family members of life; that the injuries allegedly sustained by opposite party no.2 are simple and superficial in nature; that applicant nos.4 and 5 are Jeth and Jethani and applicant no.6 is unmarried Nanad of opposite party no.2 and had no reason to make any demand of dowry or commit any cruelty to opposite party no.2; that on false allegations, entire family has been implicated in complaint case; that the complainant failed to support the allegations about obscene behaviour of applicant no.2 as well as arrival of all accused-persons at her home on 13.8.2018 in her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and on the allegations made in complaint applicant no.2 has not been summoned for offence under section 354 IPC.

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that complaint has been filed with absolutely correct allegation and the Magistrate has passed the summoning order after considering the statements of opposite party no.2 and her witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; that it is wrong to say that applicants did not arrive at the home of opposite party no.2 and did not cause marpeet with her, rather multiple injuries were caused to her, of which medical examination was done by emergency medical officer at R.M.L. Hospital, Farrukhabad on very next day; that applicants are not resident of proper Shahjahanpur City rather they belong to Tehsil Jalalabad of Sahjahanpur, which is adjoining to district Farrukhabad; that it is wrong to say that all accused have been falsely implicated.

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. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and 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 Supreme Court in 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, and the applicants have failed to prove any prima facie case.

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for applicants has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.

However, if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 23.1.2020

Tamang

 

 

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