CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Lalit Kumar Verma vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 UK CK 0130

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482) No. 1079 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 328 words

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This is Delay Condonation Application No. 1480 of 2011 for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder affidavit.

2.

The delay condonation application is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit be taken on record. The stop order dated 9.6.2011 stands recalled to that extent.

3.

Heard on the petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

4.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged proceedings of criminal case no. 386 of 2010 State vs. Lalit Kumar Verma and others, relating to offences punishable u/s 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kashipur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that petitioner is husband of the complainant''s sister. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is an employee with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, was said to be been away from the station on the date of incident. It is further submitted that the implication of the present petitioner in the criminal case relating to dowry harassment, is false.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case by appreciating the factual controversy between the parties. It is not desirable that this Court, in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., should form any opinion as to the innocence/guilt of the petitioner. It is for the trial court to examine such pleas, if raised before it.

7.

Therefore without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Lalit Kumar Verma surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, keeping in mind the plea of alibi, which is reflected from the first information report also.