RAMAN KANWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 18.10.2013, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Applicant also seeks a direction to Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar to hear the bail application of applicant expeditiously in the light of judgment passed in WPCRL no. 758 of 2013 (Hari Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand) dated 26.06.2013, judgment dated 12.08.2013 passed in I Bail Application No. 982 of 2013 and also to grant interim protection until the same is disposed of.
(2.) An FIR was lodged by the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) against six accused persons, including the applicant, on 03.05.2012, at police station Kotwali, Roorkee, which was registered as case crime no. 130 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against three accused persons, including the applicant, for the selfsame offences. Whereas the applicant is the husband of the daughter of respondent no. 2, the other charge-sheeted accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the daughter of respondent no. 2. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee and accused persons, including the applicant, were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(3.) Aggrieved against the same, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court on 25.06.2013. When the aforesaid application, being C-482 application No. 620 of 2013, was taken up for admission on 03.07. 2013, this Court directed as under:
"Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Sohail Ahmad Siddiqui, AGA for the respondent State.
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
As prayed for, two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit.
List two weeks hence.
An FIR in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the accused persons, including the present applicants. Applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the daughter of respondent no. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants and the dispute has to be settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Mediation Center as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is provided, as an interim measure, that non-bailable warrants issued against applicants no. 2 and 3 shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.