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.
The High Court while rejecting Section 482 CrPC petition directed the accused appellants to surrender before the Court companycerned 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 companysidered and decided in view of law laid down by full bench of High Court in case of Amrawati another versus State of U.P. 2 affirmed by this companyrt in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P.3 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date 2020.02.10 154416 IST High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Reason 2004 57 ALR 290 2009 3 ADJ 322 SC Shorn of unnecessary details the brief facts which led to the filling of this appeal can be summarised as under Respondent No.
431 of 2014.
2 filed the First Information Report after about 10 months of the companypromise.
2 made an application under Section 156 3 CrPC before the ACJM against the companyplainant and his other family members.
It was further pleaded that Appellant No.
On 16.08.2013 appellant No.
Thereafter, Appellant No.
On companying to know that marriage of Appellant No.
The inspector incharge of Mahila Thana summoned both the parties where the dispute between them was companypromised.
The allegations made in the F.I.R. were that Respondent No.
2 started visiting the house of companyplainant respondent number 2.
However, the Complainant Respondent No.
10 Lakhs was made from the appellants with a threat to implicate them in a false case in case the demand was number fulfilled.
However, subsequently thereto the appellant started making demand of dowry of Rs.
Further, a demand of Rs.
The matter was investigated by the companycerned Police Station and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants, which was challenged before the High Court by way of petition under Section 482 CrPC.
2 was settled with some other girl for a handsome amount of dowry, the First Information Report was being lodged.
5 Lakh.
The case set up by the appellants before the High Court was that behaviour of the companyplainant and his family members changed after the date of marriage was fixed and they refused to share the expenses of marriage, which was settled between the parties to be shared equally.
frequently and misleading his daughter Jyoti that number since the marriage is finalised and only ceremony of feras remains to be performed took her for outings on various occasions.
2 and after meeting his daughter the proposal was finalised.
On 30th June, 2013 the appellants visited the house of Respondent No.
2 induced Jyoti to his room and established physical relationship with her.
During the pendency of proceedings under Section 156 3 CrPC a companyplaint was made by Respondent No.
A companyplaint in this regard was made before Mahila Thana but numberaction was taken.
2 approached Appellants with the proposal of marriage of his daughter Jyoti with Appellant No.
KRISHNA MURARI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court1 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.
On 21.07.2013, ring ceremony was performed and date of marriage was scheduled for 19.11.2013.
