Kuldeep and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38202 of 2023 Applicant :- Kuldeep And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 24.02.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 19957 of 2022 (Khushbu Vs. Umesh Kumar @ Sonu and others), under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ F.T.C./ Judicial Magistrate (Offence Against Women), Etawah.

¶3At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has made a statement at the Bar, on instructions, that he does not want to press other prayers made in the instant application on behalf of applicant no.1 and states that the applicant no.1 is ready to appear before the court below and seek his bail and that his release be considered in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶4Per contra, learned AGA states that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants for not pressing the other prayers made in the instant application.

¶5In view of the above, in case the applicant no.1 appears before the court below within three weeks from today and seeks bail, his release be considered in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶6With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of on behalf of applicant no.1.

¶7So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.2 has already been directed to be released on bail by the court below.

¶8Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant no.2. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention and has further submitted that present complaint case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed.

¶9Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant no.2 and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10From 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 applicant no.2. 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.

¶11At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12Moreover, the applicant no.2 had already been directed to be released on bail and she has got right of discharge under Section 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and she is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶13At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has right to file discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide her discharge application, if there is no evidence against her.

¶14The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶15However, it is directed that in case the applicant no.2 files an application for discharge before the court below, then the court below shall consider each and every aspect of the matter and shall pass a detailed order on the said application expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

¶16With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of on behalf of applicant no.2. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Nadim High Court of Judicature at Allahabad