Sec 498a 406 and 3/4 506 etc

Dharmender (Querist) 07 January 2014 This query is : Resolved
My wife has filed case under 498a in Nov 2007. I have filed under sec 482 in Allahabad high court on quashing of summoning orders. There were six members of family Husband ,Father-in-law,mother-in-law,2 sister-in-law and one sister husband. The high court rejected the application against sister-in-law and her husband in Dec 2009 and asked to move discharge application which is still pending. The high court sent case of rest 4 to mediation which failed. Now high court has rejected the case under sec 482. The order is attached here with.

Its a complaint case filed with ulterior motives
My question is can I go to Supreme Court for all members as High court has rejected on the basis that earlier application against 2 was rejected earlier.
What are the remedies.

The order of High Court is:-

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 10070 of 2007, Bhawna Arora Vs. Dharmendra Kumar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. The matter was referred before the Mediation Centre by the order dated 18.12.2008. As per the report received from the Mediation Centre, the parties have appeared, however the Mediation has failed as there was no settlement in between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that due to misunderstanding a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Bhawna Arora against the applicants but no such incident took place as she was never harassed by the applicants, as such the complaint is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, contended that in the allegation it is clear that she was being harassed due to demand of dowry which could not be fulfilled. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, further contended that the prayer for quashing of summoning order of co-accused has already been quashed by this Court vide its order dated 11.12.2008, in Crl. Misc. Application No. 34840 of 2008.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and nature of allegation. At this stage, in view of the fact, no interference is required. The version of the defence has to be examined at appropriate stage,
on the basis of evidence, in accordance with law.
Without expressing any opinion on merit, in view of the facts, if the applicants appear before the court concerned within three weeks from today and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off, expeditiously, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437, after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. If the bail application could not be decided on the same day then applicant no. 4 may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application.
With these observations, present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

ajay sethi (Expert) 07 January 2014
contest case on merits before trial court .copy of order passed by HC is not attached

Dharmender (Querist) 07 January 2014
In lower court DV Act case is still pending from 6 years. I would be harassed there dure to corruption in the court My discharge application in DV Act case is still pending from 3 years but opposite lawyer is not coming for final argusments.I don't want to go to lower court