Manoj and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Suresh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing then proceeding of the Case Crime No. 116 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh.

From the perusal of record, it appears that the matter being matrimonial in nature was referred on 4.6.2012 to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 19.10.2012 is on record, from which it is evident that the mediation between the parties have completed but they have arrived at no agreement, hence the mediation has failed.

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that applicant no. 1 is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.

The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no. 1, namely, Manoj is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided 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 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

It is made clear that the applicant no. 1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.

So far as applicant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no. 1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, .

Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. Opposite party no. 2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against applicant nos. 2 to 7 only.