This Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition challenged criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court examined allegations of false complaint and lack of evidence regarding applicants 2 to 5.
Proceedings against applicants 2 to 5 under specified IPC sections are quashed; petition against applicant 1 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13767 of 2006
Applicant :- Fatima Begam & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Narain Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred against the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 386 of 2006 (Shayara Vs. Idrish and others), under Sections 406, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and cognizance order dated 12.4.2006 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 34, Agra.,
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and perused the record.
It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of opposite party no. 2 with Idrish son of applicant no. 1 Fatima Begam, took place about 27 years back. A case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated by opposite party no. 2 in the year 2005 and same is still going on. It is submission of the learned counsel that the present complaint case has been filed on the false grounds by entangling all the family members including applicant nos. 2 and 3 (Nanad) and applicant nos. 4 and 5 (Devar).
It is submission of the learned counsel that if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, even then no case against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 (Nanad) is made out as there is no allegations against them. It is further submission of the learned counsel that allegations against the applicant nos. 4 and 5 are also not made out regarding Section 406 IPC. They have also been entangled on the ground that they went to Agra where
opposite party no. 2 resides and assaulted her. It is submission of the learned counsel that all the applicants are being entangled just to pressurize Idrish who is husband of opposite party no. 2. Allegation of remarriage was also made against Idrish but same was not found true by the trial court concerned and has not summoned accuseds under Section 494, 420 and 120B IPC.
The incident dated 23.10.2006 that has been shown at Agra where applicant nos. 4 and 5 alongwith Idrsih are said to have assaulted the opposite party no. 2 whereas applicants are resident of Amroha is afterthought and has been concocted just to entangle all the family members in the criminal proceedings and applicants are protected by the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013(1) JIC 1 (SC).
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the petition and submitted that allegations prima facie are proved against the applicants on the basis of evidence produced by the opposite party no. 2 before the trial court.
So far as the allegations against applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, are not substantiated by any piece of evidence and there no is allegation against them regarding the misappropriation of stridhan of opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, proceeding against them is liable to be quashed.
So far as the allegations against applicant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, no offence is made out against them under Section 406 IPC and there is no allegation regarding misappropriation of stridhan by them and by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that any stridhan , if it is there, will be misappropriated by brother-in-law (devar) or sister-in-law (nanad) of opposite party no. 2, more so when elders are there in the family.
The incident that has been shown of Agra wherein it has been alleged that applicant nos. 4 and 5 went to Agra and assaulted the opposite party no. 2 is also seems to be fabricated and concocted one. No injury report is produced in support of the incident and it is unbelievable that three persons will go to Agra who are resident of district Amroha and will assault the opposite party no. 2 and it can very well be inferred that incident has been shown just to entangle the applicant nos. 4 and 5 in the matter. Accordingly, proceeding against applicant nos. 4 and 5 is also liable to be quashed. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra case has deprecated such complaints.
So far as allegation against the applicant no. 1 is concerned, that cannot be said to be without substance and being mother of Idrish, her implication cannot be ruled out. Stridhan, if any, is likely to be in the custody of the applicant no. 1 also and if same has not been returned, then she can be held liable for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
In view of the above, petition in so far as relates to applicant no. 1 Fatima Begum, is hereby dismissed.
Stay order, if any, stands discharged.
The petition filed on behalf of applicant nos. 2 to 5 is hereby allowed.
The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 386 of 2006 (Shayara Vs. Idrish and others), under Sections 406, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and cognizance order dated 12.4.2006 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 34, Agra, in so far as relates to applicant nos. 2 to 5, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018/Ranjeet Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint proceedings against applicants 2 to 5 are prima facie unsustainable and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant 1 Fatima Begam is implicated in the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Whether the allegations of assault and misappropriation of stridhan against the applicants are substantiated by evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶10
Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013(1) JIC 1 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Fatima Begam
Others
State Of U.P.
Abhai Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
