Disposed

Shalini Awasthi v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2019A482/8362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking quashment of an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the applicant's contention that a former summons to produce a document necessitated this court's intervention. The court held the impugned order was not fault-worthy and no ground for interference was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the impugned order was dismissed.

Shalini Awasthi Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8362 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shalini Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Mani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

On the matter being taken up, no one responds on behalf of the respondent side despite repeated calls.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint No.5968 of 2018, under Sections 494, 498A and 109 IPC, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Question involved for adjudication relates to point that an application moved in proceeding in complaint case at the stage of recording of statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. can be worked out in the shape and manner that the opposite parties may be directed to produce some document, which has got no conclusive relevancy in this case.

¶9

Also heard the learned A.G.A.

¶10

I have perused the impugned order dated 29.01.2019. Bare perusal of the the impugned order itself is indicative of fact and entirety of the case has been taken into account while dealing with application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. In this case

¶11

production of some paper is not required for adjudication of the case. It is solely and exclusively on the applicant to prove his case within four corners of law under Section 494 IPC. Assuming it to be that any paper is so brought indicating name of some child with parentage of opposite party no.2 but that alone would not be determinative conclusively of fact alleged by the complainant.

¶12

In this way, the analysis and the analogy made out by the lower court itself vide its impugned order dated 29.1.2019 cannot be faulted with at this stage. The applicant is to produce and prove her allegation at her own convenience. No observation need be made on the merit of the case. No good ground is made out for interference.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶14

It is made clear that observation so made shall not touch the merit of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.5.2019

¶16

Raj

Shalini Awasthi v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Awasthi v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shivam Raj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brij Mohan Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Prabhjeet Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and another