Criminal Case No. 2797 of 2009 · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 498A, 506
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Judgment
Shri Abdul Wahid, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2 (complainant). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of summoning order in criminal case No. 2797 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section (cid:190) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Kashipur (arisen out of F.I.R. No. 464 of 2009), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further pleaded that petitioners No. 1 and 2, are parents of petitioner No. 3 (husband of respondent No. 2/complainant). They are senior citizens. It is pleaded that the medical certificate relied by respondent No. 2 are false and fabricated. Whether the petitioners are innocent or not, and whether the medical certificate, filed in support of the criminal case by the complainant/respondent No. 2 is genuine or not, are the questions of fact, which can be examined by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to go into the question with half baked evidence, before it. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners namely Mohd. Anwar, Smt. Nargis Parveen and Firoj Ansari, surrender before the court concerned, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt. 15.03.2010 S
(P. C. P., J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.