Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68546 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4150 of 2025 Applicant :- Gaya Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sadhana Patel,Sarthak Singh,Vimlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sarthak Singh learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This is the second application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. preferred by the applicants wherein the relief has been sought to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.804/IX of 2017, (Uma Vs. Prem Narain and others), pending in the Court of First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banda, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Girwa, District Banda. Earlier the applicants had approached this Court while filing Application U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. No.26421 of 2007, Prem Narain and others Vs. State of U.P. in which on 1.12.2017 the following order was passed:- "List revised. None appears for the applicants to press this application. Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present, who has been heard along with learned A.G.A. for the State. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2415/IX of 2006, under Sections 498A, 504 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Girwa, District Banda, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banda. On the request of learned counsel for the applicants, another Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2007 had referred the matter to mediation centre of this Court. The report of mediation centre dated 28.05.2008 shows that no compromise could take place between the parties. It has been averred in the present application that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail prayer of the applicant no.3 namely, Kamla may be considered and decided expeditiously on the same day, if possible and for remaining applicants, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off." 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had obtained bail, however, according to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has solemnized marriage with somebody else and thus the rigorous of the complaint would stand diluted and extinguished. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that this is virtually a second application which may not be maintainable. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the applicants had sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.26421 of 2007 was declined on 1.12.2017, thus, the second application on change circumstances may not be maintainable. However, it is always open for the applicants to take all the legal and factual grounds before the pending trial and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.5.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad