Allowed

Smt Tarang Agarwal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2022A482/9072/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge applied Section 482 CrPC to set aside a cryptic summoning order. The court held the lower court failed to consider the police inquiry report and did not apply its mind to the records before summoning applicants under various IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 23.02.2022 set aside with direction to trial court to pass fresh order.

Smt Tarang Agarwal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9072 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Tarang Agarwal And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anshul Kumar Singhal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State - respondent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 did not appear, though, his name is shown in the cause list.

¶7

It is submitted that the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is totally based on the false grounds. When this complaint was filed the concerned court ordered for an enquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. The report dated 16.12.2021 was filed by S.I. Jitendra Singh Police Station Kamla Nagar, Agra, which was totally against the allegations mentioned in the complaint of opposite party no. 2. The applicant no. 1 has also filed a complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. etc. She has also filed a case of domestic violence against her husband and in-laws. Her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has also been allowed with an order of Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance from the opposite party no. 2 but not even a single penny has been paid by the opposite party no. 2 and in counterblast of the proceedings started by the applicant no. 1, this false complaint has been filed. So prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings and the summoning order dated 23.02.2022.

¶8

Copy of the complaint is annexed at page-'32' of the paper book wherein the allegations of the opposite party No. 2 is that his wife, the applicant no. 1 did not want to live in the joint family of the opposite party no. 2 and used to pressurize him to live with her in her parental house. She used to remain busy on her mobile and whatsapp and on being intervened she used to quarrel with him and his family members. On 25th August, 2020 all the applicants came to the house of the opposite party no. 2, abused him and his family members, committed marpeet and took the applicant no. 1 along with son, all the gold and silver jewellery and valuable clothes along with them. Thus, the jewellery mentioned in the complaint is said to be usurped by the applicant. It is also said that an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed by him but the applicant is not ready to live with him. On the basis of this

¶9

allegation, the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.c. were recorded and enquiry was ordered to be made by the police under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. The enquiry report is also annexed with the paper book wherein it has been mentioned that from the enquiry it was found that after the birth of the child the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 started quarrelling on small issues. When the son of the couple was born the opposite party no. 2 did not invite his in-laws and when his wife tried to invite her parents etc. then the opposite party no. 2 snatched her mobile and also thrashed her and did not permit him to go to her parents' house. When on 25.08.2020 the brother of the applicant no. 1 came for the adieu of applicant no. 1 she was not sent by the opposite party no. 2 and was asked to make payment of the expenses of all the customs and rituals regarding birth of the child.

¶10

It is also mentioned in the report that on 25th August, 2020 with the help of police the family members of the applicant no. 1 could take her with them. The applicant no. 1 is said to have gone with her father and brother along with newly born child in the only clothing which she was wearing at that time. Thus, in the enquiry report of the police station there is nothing incriminatory against the applicants. The impugned order dated 23.02.2020 is also on the record wherein the applicants are summoned to face the trial under Sections 147, 323, 452, 406, 504, 506 120-B I.P.C.

¶11

From perusal of the order, it is found that it is a very cryptic order wherein the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2 and his witnesses have not been discussed. The enquiry report dated 16.12.2021 of the Police Station Kamla Nagar, Agra has not been even mentioned therein while the enquiry was made on the directions of the court concerned.

¶12

Thus, the order being a cryptic order wherein it does not appear that the officer concerned has even applied his mind and gone through the complete records, the order is liable to be set aside. The summoning order dated 23.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 4122 of 2021 pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 4, Agra, is hereby set aside with the direction to the trial court to pass a fresh order on the basis of directions given above.

¶13

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.6.2022 gp

¶15

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.06.08 17:24:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Tarang Agarwal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Tarang Agarwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Kamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakshman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiva Shukla Vs State of U.P. 4 Others

Jay Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. 7 Others