Abha Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. On the request of Learned Counsel for the applicants matter was sent to Mediation Centre on 18.5.2011 and the Mediation Centre, vide its report dated 13.11.2011, has reported that no agreement took place between the parties. The report of Mediation Centre is on record.

The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case No. 594 of 2010 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 392 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.

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

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge u/s 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.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.

The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.

However, considering the fact that the applicants No. 1,2 and 4 are ladies, it is provided that if they appear and surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in accordance with law. It is further provided that if the remaining applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amaravati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR- 290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of 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 disposed off.