Allowed

Madhubala Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023A482/26623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants. The court held that general, vague, and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the victim's husband did not justify a criminal trial, citing precedents on preventing harassment through unjustified prosecutions.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned summoning order dated 29.1.2021 and the entire proceedings filed in Complaint Case No. 1869 of 2020 against the applicants only.

Madhubala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172328

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26623 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Madhubala Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rayoof Ali,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned summoning order dated 29.1.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1869 of 2020 (Vijeta Pandey Vs. Pawan Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dharam Singhwa, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div) FTCII/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No. 1 is the sister in-law and applicant No. 2 is the brother in-law of opposite party No. 2 and infact was a minor at the time of incident. Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the said statements, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicants just with an intention to drag them in criminal court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that infact the applicants have absolutely no role to play in the said incident and have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs between husband and wife and have been falsely roped in only on account of being the family members of her husband-Pawan.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie, offence is clearly made out against applicants.

¶11

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

¶12

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

From the material collected during the course of enquiry also, it is evident that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against applicants and as such, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through tribulations of a trial, i.e. general, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be manifest in a situation where the relatives of the victim's husband are forced to undergo trial in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

¶14

In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parak Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the aforesaid proceedings in respect of applicants are quashed.

¶15

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed by quashing the proceedings against applicants only.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 KU

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madhubala Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhubala Devi and Another 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

Surendra Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Akram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ujjawal Singh @ Vicky and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sunil Kumar Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another