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

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37200 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Manoj Kumar Mishra 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.

¶2The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 30.03.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1762 of 2016 (Sunita Devi Vs. Deepak and Another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 od Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Titaro, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ F.T.C., Saharanpur.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. He has also pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention and has further submitted that present compliant case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that applicants had already been directed to be released on bail.

¶5Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶6From 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 applicants. 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.

¶7At 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.

¶8Moreover, the applicants had already been directed to be released on bail and they have 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 they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶9At 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 their discharge application, if there is no evidence against them.

¶10The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶11However, it is directed that in case the applicants file 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 discharge application expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

¶12With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Nadim High Court of Judicature at Allahabad