The court refused to quash the summoning order under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. It held that prima facle evidence existed. The trial court was directed to explore a compromise regarding the matrimonial dispute.
Prayer for quashment refused; trial court directed to explore compromise possibility.
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. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3910 of 2003
Applicant :- Ashok Singh & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- H.K. Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,D.P. Singh,S. Niranjan
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashment of the summoning order dated 07.06.2002 and proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.67 of 2002 Smt. Sudha Thankur Vs. Ashok Singh and others, under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party no.2 Sudha Thakur has already got remarried and lodged false case against the applicants, whereas, no such incident has taken place. Allegations made in the complaint and statement are mischievous and the court below has failed to appreciate the proper facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly, summoned the applicants 498A, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The summoning order is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the wife - opposite party no2. is still ready to reside with her husband.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashment of the summoning order and submitted that the summoning order is just and legal which requires no interference by this Court.
It appears that a complaint was moved before the
court below alleging therein that the incident took place on 03.02.2002 around 4:00 p.m. when offence was committed and the dowry demand was made by the applicant in the parental house of the complainant. The court below after recording statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. passed the summoning order against the applicants.
Perusal of the record itself reflects that at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie evidence is lacking for summoning the applicants under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned summoning order. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the impugned summoning order is refused.
However, the trial court is directed to explore possibility of compromise between the parties considering the matrimonial dispute.
The instant application is, accordingly, disposed of.
The observation made in this order shall not touch on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 2.1.2019 rkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act requires quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Singh & Others
State Of U.P.
Smt. Sudha Thankur
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
