Quashed

Kishan Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2019A482/16367/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash criminal proceedings filed by a daughter's husband as a counter-blast to a prior complaint filed by the family. Finding the proceedings were abusive and designed to pressure withdrawal of the earlier case, the Court quashed the complaint and summoning order.

What did the court decide?

The complaint case No.1134/2006 and the summoning order dated 21.3.2007 are quashed.

Kishan Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16367 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Kishan Pal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,V.K. Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V. K. Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.

¶6

2. This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case No.1134/2006 (Sachin Raghav Vs. Kushal Pal Singh & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut as well as the summoning order dated 21.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut.

¶7

3. The brief facts of the case are that the daughter of applicant no.1 namely Smt. Deepti Raghav got married with the opposite party no.2 namely Sachin Raghav on 22.6.2004 as per Hindu Rites & Ceremony at Meerut. The applicants have spent almost six lacs rupees on gifts/dowry which were presented to the opposite party no.2 and his other family members at the time of marriage.

¶8

4. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law and applicant no.2 is the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2.

¶9

5. It is further submitted that soon after the marriage the daughter of the applicant no.1 namely Smt. Deepti Raghav was subjected to cruelty and a persistent dowry demand of rupees five lacs and a Car, were being raised by the opposite party no.2 and his family. The applicants in the month of February, 2005 had given rupees two lacs to the opposite party no.2 and his family member in order to satisfy the greed for dowry of the opposite party no.2 and his family, but still the same could not pacify the hunger and greed of the opposite party no.2 and his family members and they continuously treated the daughter of the applicant no.2 with cruelty and forced her to bring Rs.3 lacs and a Car from the applicants and when the applicants showed their disability to fulfil the dowry demand of the opposite party no.2 and his family, the daughter of applicant no.2 namely Smt. Deepti Raghav was seriously beaten up and thrown out of her matrimonial home in the month of June, 2005. It is further submitted that under the compelling circumstances and financial distress the daughter of the

¶10

applicant no.2 Smt. Deepti Raghav moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 6.1.2006 claiming maintenance from the opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. On the said application notices were issued to the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that immediately thereafter on 8.1.2006 at about 11:00 A.M. the opposite party no.2 came along with his father and sister to Meerut and again repeated demand of dowry from the applicants and when the applicants showed their inability to fulfil the same, the opposite party no.2 abused them and beaten the daughter of applicant no.1 mercilessly.

¶11

6. In the aforementioned incident the daughter of the applicant sustained injuries, whereupon she got medically examined on 8.1.2006 at 12:30 P.M. at P.L. Sharma, District Hospital, Meerut, thereafter, the applicants immediately reported the matter to the concerned police station, but they refused to take any action upon the same, as such, the daughter of the applicant no.1 Smt. Deepti Raghav filed a complaint on 12.1.2006 against the opposite party no.2 and his father and sister under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, the said complaint was registered as Case Crime No.227/2006 and learned A.C.J.M. 1st, Meerut and vide order dated 2.2.2006 opposite party no.2 has been summoned.

¶12

7. It is further submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid events, the opposite party no.2 in order to create a defence to law and to pressurize the applicant to withdraw the cases instituted by their daughter namely Smt. Deepti Raghav cooked up an entirely false, frivolous and concocted story and filed a complaint under Sections 323, 386, 392, 504, & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut against the applicants and two other unknown persons. The allegations contained in the complaint dated 9.6.2006, so filed by the opposite party no.2 were that the applicants had been pressurizing the opposite party no.2 to stay apart from his family and when he refused to do the same, the applicant no.1 alongwith his daughter Smt. Deepti had took away Rs.30,000/- and jewelry in his absence, by giving sleeping pills to his father. It is further submitted that when the opposite party no.2 had come alongwith his father to Meerut to attend the date fixed i.e. 1.6.2006 in the matter instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. then on the same date the applicants had snatched the Titan Watch of the opposite party no.2 and threatened him of dire consequences in case he does not give them six lacs back.

¶13

8. The submission of the counsel for the applicants is that it is unambiguous from the underlying facts of the present case that the present complaint has been filed against the applicant as a counter blast in order to pressurize the daughter of the applicant

¶14

no.1 Smt. Deepti Raghav to withdraw the criminal case and the maintenance petition filed against the opposite party no.2. It is thus, submitted that initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants on the basis of false frivolous and concocted complaint is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶15

9. On the other hand, Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the allegation regarding demand of additional dowry is absolutely wrong and is denied. It is further submitted that the daughter of applicant no.1 namely Smt. Deepti Raghav had herself deserted the company of answering respondent on 24.3.2005, while leaving the home she administered sleeping pills to the father of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that application filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the opposite party no.2 has already been rejected vide order dated 23.2.2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, reference in this regard is made to annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

¶16

10. I have very carefully examined the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record.

¶17

11. As regards the allegations pertaining to the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., it would be seen from the record that on the complaint of the applicants i.e. Complaint Case No.227/2006, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut was registered against opposite party No.2 and his family members. The Complaint which is sought to be quashed, being Complaint Case No.1134/2006, under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Railway Road, District Meerut, which was registered against the applicants and others on 9.6.2006 i.e. after a span of more than 4 months from the filing of the complaint against opposite party No.2 and his parents.

¶18

12. When the complaint which is sought to be quashed is looked into in the context of overall facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is a counter-blast to the complaint registered against him and his family members on the complaint of applicant's daughter and it appears to have been filed with a view to pressurise the petitioner. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, in my considered view, complaint case No.1134/2006 (Sachin Raghav Vs. Kushal Pal Singh & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut as well as the summoning order dated 21.3.2007

¶19

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut is liable to be quashed.

¶20

13. In view of the above, this 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed and the complaint case No.1134/2006 (Sachin Raghav Vs. Kushal Pal Singh & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut as well as the summoning order dated 21.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut, is hereby quashed.

¶21

14. This 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2019 Dev/-

Kishan Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Pal Singh and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramavtar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Washid Ragad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Dulare and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar @ Ram Govind Sahani and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.