Allowed

Smt. Neelam and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2019A482/25372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and summoning order in a Section 406 IPC case filed as a counter-blast to maintenance and dowry proceedings. Court quashed proceedings applying Anupriya Pal precedent.

What did the court decide?

Present application allowed; entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 447 of 2014, summoning order dated 24.11.2014, and order dated 17.06.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2015 set aside.

Smt. Neelam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:-24.07.2019 Delivered On:-16.08.2019

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25372 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Neelam And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauh,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chau

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶6

1. List revised. None present for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

2. Heard Shri Ram Om Vikram Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

3. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 447 of 2014 (Virendra Singh Vs. Neelam and others) and summoning order dated 24.11.2014 as well as order dated 17.06.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 2, Etawah in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2015 (Smt. Neelam and others Vs. State of U.P. And others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

¶9

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have not committed the present offence. Offence under Section 406 IPC is not attracted in the present matter. Present complaint was filed in counter-blast to the prosecution started by the applicant no. 1 against son of opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 is married with son of opposite party no. 2. Other criminal prosecution for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act have also been started against the opposite party no. 2. Referring to the contents of the complaint, it is further submitted that it appears improbable and unbelievable that after making compromise, applicants will run away taking Rs. 4 lakhs. Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Anupriya Pal & others Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2018 Lawsuit (SC) 1370 argued that revisional

¶10

¶11

court has also committed illegality in rejecting the revision.

¶12

5. On the other hand, learned AGA argued that a prima facie case is made out. Since a compromise was entered into between the parties, both the parties were present in the court premises and before signing on the compromise, applicants took Rs. 4 lakhs from opposite party no. 2 thereafter they ran away from the court premises. Thus, offence under Section 406 IPC is clearly made out. Summoning order passed in the matter is illegal.

¶13

6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶14

7. In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant no. 1 Smt. Neelam was married with son of opposite party no. 2. A criminal prosecution for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as Crime No. 241 of 2012 and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have also been started by the applicant no. 1 against the son of opposite party no. 2. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of applicant no. 1. Criminal proceeding for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act as mentioned here-in-above is also going-on between the parties. Allegation against the applicants is that despite receiving Rs. 4 lakhs in lieu of settlement entered into between the parties, applicants ran away from the court premises and did not execute the settlement agreement. It is also evident that present complaint was filed after the order passed in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and submissions of charge-sheet in Crime No. 241 of 2012.

¶15

8. Before scrutinizing the facts and evidence of the present matter in light of submissions raised by learned counsel for both the parties, I find it appropriate to quote para no. 7 of Anupriya Pal (supra) which runs as under:-

¶16

“ This is a classic case of taking revenge by the husband against the wife since he was aggrieved by the action of the wife moving an application seeking maintenance. Absolutely no allegation which could fit in for the offence under Section 420 IPC is found in the first information lodged by Respondent No. 2. Since the first information of Respondent No. 2 appears to be a counter

¶17

¶18

blast to the maintenance proceeding initiated by the wife against her husband, these proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the High Court is set aside. The proceedings in Complaint Case No. 6714 of 2011 pending before the Additional CJM Court, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.”

¶19

9. In this matter, present prosecution was started against the applicants for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the averments made in the counter affidavit, if the ratio laid down in Anupriya Pal case (supra) is taken into consideration, it cannot be ruled out that present complaint was filed by the husband side against the wife side in counter-blast only to take revenge feeling aggrieved with the criminal prosecution started on behalf of wife side. Grounds taken in the affidavit to quash the entire proceeding of aforesaid criminal case are sufficient and the summoning order as well as revisional court order both are liable to be set aside. Applicants' case is also squarely covered with the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

¶20

10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed .

¶21

11. Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 447 of 2014 (Virendra Singh Vs. Neelam and others) and summoning order dated 24.11.2014, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah passed by Judicial Magistrate, Etawah as well as order dated 17.06.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 2, Etawah in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2015 (Smt. Neelam and others Vs. State of U.P. And others) are hereby set aside.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.08.2019

¶23

Sanjeet

Smt. Neelam and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam and 4 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudeo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navnit Kumar Narang and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhakishan and 3 Others Vs state of U.P. and another

Kismatullah and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Bihari Tiwari Vs State of Up and Another

Damodar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another