Dismissed

Tanu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019A482/44925/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. While rejecting the quash request due to the existence of an impugned summoning order based on prima facie evidence, the court conditioned its dismissal on a direction to seek bail within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Bail application made within 30 days shall be considered expeditiously.

Tanu and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44925 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tanu And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been given with the request to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 168 of 2019: Braj Kishore Vs. Tanu & others, under sections 504, 323, 379, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate and also to set aside the summoning order dated 27.2.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no. 1 is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and the allegations made by opposite party no. 2 in his complaint are totally false. After their marriage, the opposite party no. 2 and his family members started demanding additional dowry which could not be fulfilled by her parents and, therefore, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Applications were given by applicant no. 2 in this regard to the police authorities. The applicant no. 1 has not initiated any criminal proceedings against opposite party no. 2. On the bogus allegations, complaint has been filed and the learned magistrate without applying judicial mind has summoned the applicants for the said offence, hence the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶8

From perusal of documents attached with this application, it appears that complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with the allegation that applicant no. 1 is his wife. Her behaviour with him and his family members was not good and despite efforts being made by him, she did not like to live with opposite party no. 2. On 24.11.2017, in noon, his father-in-law (applicant no. 2) and his mother-in-law (applicant no. 3) came to his house and his wife sent him market for bringing some refreshment. After ten minutes when he came back, he found that they all were coming out from his house and on being asked, they started abusing and beating him and said that they would not permit their daughter to live with him.

¶9

The witnesses came there and saved him. He found that they took away the ornaments and Rs.3,000/- in cash with them.

¶10

In support of complaint, the complainant examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and supported the complaint allegation. P.W. 1- Mohan Lal and P.W. 2-Ghanshyam were also examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. and they also supported the version of complaint. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned trial court found that prima facie case was made out against the applicants for the aforesaid offence and, therefore, they were summoned by the impugned order.

¶11

From perusal of complaint allegation and relationship between both the parties, it appears to be a matrimonial kind of dispute and dis-satisfaction between the parties. On being enquired, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that he has not filed any revision before the Competent Court against the order of summoning. It is pertinent to mention here that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of evidence on record. In view of this, no interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. is required.

¶12

In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force, hence the same is dismissed.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that if the applicants surrender and apply for bail before the court below within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably on the same day in accordance with law keeping in view that it is a matrimonial kind of dispute and there is no reason for sending the applicants to jail.

¶14

For the above thirty days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, if the applicants move to settle the dispute through mediation before the court below, the learned court below is expected to direct the applicants to appear before the District Mediation Centre.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 RCT/-

Tanu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Daya Kishan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Narayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

P. Jethro and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Durgpal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Chandra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another