Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023A482/28699/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the applicant's plea to quash FIR and NBW orders. It held that quashing the entire proceeding was inapplicable as the FIR specifically alleged a non-cognizable offence by the applicant, distinguishing the precedent where other in-laws were not parties.

What did the court decide?

Relief claimed to quash criminal proceedings and set aside NBW orders was rejected.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28699 of 2022 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakash Chandra Dwivedi,Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶3

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier he had been bailed out, later on warrants and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued agaisnt the applicant, so the prayer is made to quash the orders dated 2.4.2022, 21.5.2022 and 14.7.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 04, Allahabad. Placing reliance on the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117 , it is further argued that there is general allegation in the FIR agaisnt all the accused persons, so the entire criminal proceeding, orders u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. as well as non bailable warrants be also quashed.

¶4

The perusal of the FIR appended with the file, reveals the general allegation against all the family members of the opp. party no. 2 along with the present applicant, who happens to be the husband of the opp. party no. 2 also, regarding demand of dowry and harassment thereon and attempt to put to death the victim by sprinkling kerosene oil and acid on her. It is also submitted that father-in-law of the opp. party no. 2 in inebriated condition used to molest her. Her in-laws used to give her threat of taking away her two years old child from her. Threat of putting to death to the brother and father of the opp. party no. 2 is also said to have been given.

¶5

Inviting the attention of the court towards the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117 above, it is submitted that as per the facts of this judgment because the allegations of the victim were general, no specific role was assigned to any of the accused persons, so the Apex Court was pleased to quash the FIR against all the appellants therein, hence, the prayer is made to quash the entire criminal proceeding, the orders of issuing process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and non bailable warrants dated 2.4.2022, 21.5.2022 and 14.7.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 04, Allahabad in case no. 1368 of 2012, State Vs. Jitendra Kumar, arising out of case crime no. 28 of 2006, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police

¶6

station Kareli District Allahabad.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 opposed the prayer by placing an order dated 17.12.2019 of this court passed in Cr. Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 46709 of 2019, Smt. Shashi Singh Vs. State Of UP And 4 Others and submitted that on the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of the opp. party no.2, the order was passed by this court for expeditious disposal of the case, while, the case is of 2006 and it is still pending for appearance of the applicant. It is further argued that in year 2006 cognizance was taken by the trial court and in year 2012 charge was framed.

¶8

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously, the applicant was on bail, though no bail order has been placed before the court. It was further submitted that as he went out with regard to his livelihood and on his back non bailable warrants and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued agaisnt the applicant.

¶9

However, neither the whole order sheet has been placed before the court by the learned counsel for the applicant, nor it has been made clear as to since when the applicant was absconding from the trial court and what is the stage of proceedings before the trial court. The prayer is made to set aside the orders dated 2.4.2022, 21.5.2022 and 14.7.2022 but the prayer is not made to set aside the orders dated 5.3.2022 and 21.3.2022 whereby NBW and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the applicant and without recalling those orders, the applicant cannot get the relief of recalling non bailable warrants and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. issued against him.

¶10

So far as prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the case pending before trial court is concerned, in the FIR, there is clear allegation of committal of non cognizable offence against the present applicant which being the matter of fact cannot be decided at this stage. So far as the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) placed before this court is concerned, in this appeal the husband of the victim was not a party and this order was passed by the Apex Court only against the rest inlaws of the victim, while the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved only on behalf of the husband of the victim, so the applicant cannot get the benefit of this judgement filed by him, hence, the relief claimed by him as above is rejected.

¶11

The present application lacks merits and is hereby rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.1.2023/Gss

¶13

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar 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

Amar Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Binni @ Vinny and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Satish Chandra Kesharwani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivchand and 7 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

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