Allahabad High Court
Naval Kishor Gupta And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 November, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36611 of 2019 Applicant :- Naval Kishor Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Shubham Dwivedi Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 19281 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Naval Kishor Gupta & others) arising out of case crime no.1000 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that applicants are the family members of the husband of opposite party no.2. They have no concern with the present matter. They were living separately. Initially, charge-sheet was submitted only against the husband and thereafter, without recording further statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicants, which is illegal. Referring to the contents of the F.I.R. it is further submitted that in the F.I.R., entire allegations have been levelled against the husband. At this juncture, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another Vs. Monica, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 604 and further argued that the husband has not been arrayed as party in this application, yet applicants are ready to settle the matter through compromise.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that applicants had also approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same was disposed of directing them to surrender before the court concerned within the specified period, but they have not complied with the direction given by this Court. It is further submitted that mediation process was started at Ghaziabad, which was not successful. Even mediation process started in this Court in criminal writ was also failed. It is further submitted that all the applicants were involved in demand of dowry and causing cruelty and harassment to the opposite party no.2. A prima facie case is made out against them. Specific allegations have been made against them.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the entire record, when mediation was not successful earlier, opposite party no.2 is not willing to settle the dispute on the basis of compromise and also taking into consideration the specific role assigned to the applicants, prayer made in the applicant cannot be allowed. The court dealing with the matter at this stage has to see only a prima facie case and from perusal of the entire evidence, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. As far as law laid down in cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in the present matter. Therefore, applicants do not get any benefit from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above-cited cases. It is also clarified that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 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 Supreme Court in the 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 (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The prayer made in the application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 ss