Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 959 of 1994 Petitioner :- Mool Chandra Jain And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- V.S. Shukla,D.N. Misra Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
List revised. None appears to press the present petition on behalf of the
applicants. Learned AGA is present for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of
case crime no. 803 of 1999 under sections 323, 324, 498-A IPC and ¾ Dowry
Prohibition Act pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.
This Court vide order dated 15.03.1994 had issued notices and had stayed
further proceedings of aforesaid case. However, till date, no counter affidavit
has been filed.
It is contended in the petition that applicant no. 3 had married the daughter of
Jainendra Kumar Jain in April, 1993, but she was not physically fit for being
married for which differences arose between the parties and ultimately the
husband initiated proceedings for dissolution of the marriage under section 12
of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is contended that as a counter blast, present
criminal prosecution has has been drawn against the applicant, which is bad in
law. It is last contended that the applicants no. 2 and 4 are a ladies, therefore
their bail application be considered on the same day by the Court below.
From the 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law
laid down by Supreme Court in 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. Moreover, the applicants has got right of discharge
under Section 239, 245 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail prayer
of the applicants no. 2 and 4 shall be considered by the Court below on the
same day if possible and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail shall be
considered in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290. For a
period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of
bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants. However in case the applicants do not appear before the Court
below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Learned AGA undertakes to inform the learned counsel for the applicant
about the order passed today within 48 hours. Let a copy of this order be
provided to the learned AGA for compliance.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
yachna