Arvind and Others vs State Of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 3318 of 2013 u/s 498A IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, police station Ghosi, district Mau pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau and also to quash the summoning order dated 6.1.2014 passed in the aforesaid case.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is husband and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law, applicant No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 respectively and they have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations only to put pressure upon the family of the husband therefore, criminal prosecution of the applicants is bad in law. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, in support of his contention.

So far as the applicant No. 1 (husband) is concerned following orders is being passed:-

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred u/s 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. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge u/s 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order dated 06.1.2014 is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant No. 1 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . 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 applicant No. 1. However, in case, the applicant No. 1 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned.

So far as the applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are concerned following orders is being passed:-

Issue notice to the opposite party No. 2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party No. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant No. 2 to 7 in the aforesaid case.