Kamla Devi and Others vs State of U.P.and Another

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

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 913 of 2011 (Shobha Devi Vs. Gyan Chandra and others), under Sections 498A I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, IInd, District Ballia.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a no injury case It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is lastly contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is a lady, therefore her bail application be considered on the same day by the Court below.

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 question 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 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 (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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 proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant no.1 namely, Kamla Devi, shall be considered by the Court below on the same day if possible, and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290. 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 finally disposed of.