Dismissed

Ajad Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2022A482/3899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order and proceedings in a domestic violence case involving Sections 498-A IPC. The court held no cogent reason for interference, allowing bail if filed within 21 days. No coercive action allowed during that period.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; 21 days granted to move for bail without coercive action.

Ajad Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3899 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ajad Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ausaf Un Nabi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no.6, District Farrukhabad as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.321 of 2021, under Section 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that regarding the same occurrence an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 as case crime no.260 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C, and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S.Nidhuli Kala, District Etah in which after investigation police has submitted chargesheet against Ajad Khan (husband), Smt. Shahnaj (mother-n-law), Irshad Khan alias Inshad Ali (fatherin-law), Sana (nanad), Abad (dewar), Smt. Harjana alias Farzana (dewrani). It is further contended that in abuse of process of law the opposite party no.2 had lodged another complaint dated 21/23.02.2021 as complaint case no.321 of 2021 on the same facts at P.S.Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad in which summoning order was passed on 23.11.2021. Regarding quashing of summoning order dated 23.11.2021 and complaint case no.321 of 2021 the present application has been

¶8

moved.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that as the occurrence took place at different places, therefore, this application is not maintainable. This requires appreciation of evidence which cannot be decided in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 30.09.2020 as Case Crime No.260 of 2020,under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C, and 3/4 D.P.Act at P.S.Nidhuli Kala, District Etah alleging therein that she was ousted from the house of in-laws on 20.09.2020. In the present case occurrence was stated to have taken in the house of father of the opposite party no.2 where accused persons arrived and Panchayat was done.

¶10

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.L.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶11

Keeping in view of the law laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC 850 , I do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the order of taking cognizance against the accused, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the proceeding is refused. The instant application is dismissed.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the accused-applicants surrender before the court below and move bail application within 21

¶13

days from today, the court below shall decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773

¶14

For a period of 21 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.3.2022 Asha

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.03.24 09:19:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajad Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajad Khan and 2 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

Rajan Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sunil @ Pandit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Dev Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and 3 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Other