Dismissed

Aditya Saroj and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2019A482/9127/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a criminal complaint filed under 498-A IPC and others. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated by this court at this stage and a prima facie case was made out on the available material.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; quashing prayer refused.

Aditya Saroj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9127 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aditya Saroj And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Atmaram Nadiwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by accusedapplicants for quashing the impugned complaint case no.1272 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Mau, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Mau and further proceedings in pursuant to impugned order dated 08.11.2016.

¶7

Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that all the applicants have been falsely implicated by complainant-opposite party no.2 for the purpose of harassment. Applicant neither demanded dowry nor harassed the complainant after marriage but allegations have falsely been made against the applicants. Further submitted that complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction and is being tried by Magistrate having been no territorial jurisdiction to entertain. Learned Magistrate without any sufficient ground has illegally summoned the applicants for facing trial. In fact opposite party no.2 was not willing to live with the family of applicants and in order to harass and black mail entire family has been implicated in the present case with frivilous allegation. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA appearing for State opposed the submissions made for the applicant.

¶9

In Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 528, Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶10

"23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22.6.2006 by adding the words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction". there is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the

¶11

Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment."

¶12

It reveals from the record that a complaint being Complaint Case No. 1272 of 2016 has been filed by the complainant / opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506, 494 and 498-A I.P.C. The Magistrate, after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and making an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by recording the statement of witnesses, namely, Hanuman and Hari Ram, finding prima facie evidence and sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-applicant, summoned him for facing trial.

¶13

From perusal of material on record and looking to the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in Cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶14

I do not see any good ground for quashing the same and prayer is refused.

¶15

Accordingly, application is rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Aditya Saroj and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Saroj and 5 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

Ajaypal Singh @ Manjhale Vs State of U.P.

Nandlal Vs State of U.P.

Lal Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Salman Vs State of U.P.