Partly allowed

Haris Husain @ Raja and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2019A482/44431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings for cruelty under Sections 498-A IPC against them. Court quashed proceedings against applicants who were falsely implicated family members but refused quashing for the husband and son-in-law who were direct parties to the alleged act.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet and proceedings against applicants no. 2, 3, and 4. Prayer for quashing against applicants no. 1 and 5 refused. 90% of deposited sum directed to be paid to opposite party.

Haris Husain @ Raja and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44431 of 2018

¶2

Applicant :- Haris Husain @ Raja And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajai Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, the counsel for O.P. No.2 and and perused the record.

¶5

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the charge sheet dated 17.4.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 1036 of 2018 (State Versus Harish Husain@ Raja and others) arising out of case crime no. 7 of 2018 under section 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Ujhani district Budaun pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

¶6

After having heard learned learned counsel for the parties, I have also scanned the record brought before this court particularly the contents of the averments of the charge sheet against applicant no. 1, husband and applicant no.5, Devar of O.P. No.2. rest of the applicants are the family members i.e. Shakir Husain, father-in-law, Jeenat @ Nanhi, mother-in-law, Km. Rozi, Nand of O.P. No.2 respectively.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants while assailing the impunged order and the proceeding has stressed that in this case, there is no specific material roping in the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 who happen to be father-in-law and mother-in-law and Nand of opposite party no.2 who have been falsely implicated in this case just because they happen to be father, mother and sister of applicant no.1 - husband. Therefore, in view of the principle pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464, the

¶8

proceeding drawn against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 are erroneous and are in sheer misuse of the process of the Court and the same cannot be allowed to go on.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashment of the impugned order.

¶10

Considered the above submissions and the contents disclosed in the complaint. There is no specific allegation against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 as they happen to be father-in-law and motherin-law and Nand of opposite party no.2, they cannot be said to be either beneficiaries or they have direct link with act of perpetration of cruelty, therefore, proceeding in charge sheet dated 17.4.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 1036 of2018 (State Versus Harish Husain@ Raja and others) arising out of case crime no. 7 of 2018 under sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Ujhani district Budaun pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 is quashed.

¶11

Insofar as applicant applicant nos.1 and 5 husband and Devar of O.P. No. 2 are concerned, no good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned order and proceeding. Accordingly, his prayer for quashment of the impugned order and proceeding in so far as applicant nos. 1 and 5 is concerned the same is refused. They required to participate in the proceeding before the court concerned.

¶12

A mention has been made on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that in the mediation centre a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited, it should be given to O.P. No. 2. The prayer is accepted and it is directed that 90% of the deposited amount shall be paid to opposite party no.2 for her appearance before the Mediation Centre.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant application is allowed partly. Order Date :- 1.5.2019/N.A.

Haris Husain @ Raja and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haris Husain @ Raja 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamal Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Narayan and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Neelam Devi and 2 Others Vs the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and 9 Others

Mohd Naseem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahzadey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another