Allowed

Khan Ahmad Bajargan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019A482/12620/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the applicant no.1's family members (mother-in-law, father-in-law, and in-laws). Applying the ratio in Geeta Mehrotra, the court quashed proceedings against them due to vague allegations and lack of specific incrimination.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 295/2017 under Sections 147, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act quashed so far as applicants nos. 2 to 6 are concerned.

Khan Ahmad Bajargan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12620 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Khan Ahmad Bajargan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Ram Awadh Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 25.1.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 295/2017( Aysha Begum Vs. Khan Ahmad Bajargan and others), under Sections147, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Brijmanganj, District- Maharajganj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Farenda.

¶7

Vide order dated 16.4.2018, the matter was referred to the mediation centre but mediation was not successful and accordingly, failed. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.1.2019, a prayer for quashing the complaint in respect of applicant no.1, namely Khan Ahmad Bajargan, the husband of opposite party no.2 was refused and he was directed to appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, then his prayer be considered and decided in view of settled law. So far as the quashing of the complaint in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, time was granted to counsel for opposite party to file counter affidavit.

¶8

Pursuant thereto, counter and rejoinder affidavit between the parties has been exchanged. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that offence against applicant nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 147, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act are made out.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that against the applicant nos. 2 to 6, who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-laws (devar) and sister-in-law (nanad) respectively has been summoned, although there is general and vague allegations against them.

¶10

Relying on the decision in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. 2012 (10) SCC 741 , learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are bald and general allegations against all the family members of the applicant no.1-husband and there is nothing on record to constitute the offence under Sections 147, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act against them and only because of being family members of the husband, they have unnecessarily been roped in these proceedings only with a view to harass them. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), learned counsel for the applicants prays that the entire proceedings of abovementioned complaint

¶11

case are liable to be quashed.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA while supporting the impugned summoning order and the proceedings, submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the same warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

After hearing the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the impugned summoning order, complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, it is clear that no specific allegation has been levelled therein against the applicant nos. 2 to 6, who are the family members of the applicant no.1-husband.

¶14

It has clearly been laid in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) that if the complaint/FIR as it stand does not disclose specific allegation against the accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the accused to undergo trial and in regard to the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings, thereby preventing the abuse of the process of law.

¶15

As indicated above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the applicant no.1-husband has already been rejected by the Court vide order dated 21.1.2019, this petition survives only with regard to applicant nos. 2 to 6, who are the family members of the applicant no.1-husband and against whom prima facie no offence is disclosed against them. Therefore, applying the ratio as laid down in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶16

Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 295/2017 (Aysha Begum Vs. Khan Ahmad Bajargan and others), under Sections- 147, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act are hereby quashed so far as applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 Noman

Khan Ahmad Bajargan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khan Ahmad Bajargan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhas Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ritika @ Radha Vs State of Up and 3 Other

Shailendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Babuji @ Hemendra Pratap and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rinku Paswan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Sucrotech Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another