ARUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF U.P.
Click here to view full judgement.
KRISHNA MURARI,J. -
(2.)This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'the
CrPC) challenging the charge sheet filed against them. The High Court while
rejecting Section 482 CrPC petition directed the accused appellants to
surrender before the Court concerned within 30 days from the date of order
and in case they do so within the stipulated period and apply for bail the same
was liable to be considered and decided in view of law laid down by full
bench of High Court in case of Amrawati & another versus State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
affirmed by this court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details the brief facts which led to the filling of this appeal can be summarised as under:-
Respondent No. 2 lodged First Information Report with Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly under Section 493 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants herein which was registered as case crime No. 431 of 2014. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were that Respondent No.-2 approached Appellants with the proposal of marriage of his daughter Jyoti with Appellant No.-1. On 30th June, 2013 the appellants visited the house of Respondent No.-2 and after meeting his daughter the proposal was finalised. On 21.07.2013, ring ceremony was performed and date of marriage was scheduled for 19.11.2013. Thereafter, Appellant No.-2 started visiting the house of complainant/respondent no.-2. frequently and misleading his daughter Jyoti that now since the marriage is finalised and only ceremony of 'feras' remains to be performed took her for outings on various occasions. On 16.08.2013 appellant No.-2 induced Jyoti to his room and established physical relationship with her. However, subsequently thereto the appellant started making demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakh. A complaint in this regard was made before Mahila Thana but no action was taken. On coming to know that marriage of Appellant No.-2 was settled with some other girl for a handsome amount of dowry, the First Information Report was being lodged.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.