Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 July, 2013
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21014 of 2013 Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- V.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1058 of 2012 (Smt. Poonam Vs. Narendra Singh and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Goverdhan, District Mathura, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-IInd, Mathura.
The marriage between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized in the year 2011.
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 so far as applicant nos.1,2 & 3, namely, Narendra Singh (husband), Man Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Bhagwan Dei (mother-in-law) are concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant nos.1,2 & 3 is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant nos.1,2 & 3 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. It is made clear that the applicant nos.1,2 & 3 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
So far as applicant nos.4 to 6, namely, Rajesh, Smt. Geeta & Jitendra 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 Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
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.4 to 6, namely, Rajesh, Smt. Geeta & Jitendra.
Order Date :- 4.7.2013 NS