Dismissed

Amarjeet Yadav @ Lucky Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024/2119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging misconceived FIR and lack of evidence. High Court found no apparent error in trial court process after chargesheet and held proceedings must continue. Quashing petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings dismissed. Bail applications of petitioners to be considered evenly for expeditious disposal.

Amarjeet Yadav @ Lucky Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1541

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2119 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amarjeet Yadav @ Lucky Yadav And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Panna Lal Gupta,Tulsi Ram Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Tulsi Ram Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 31.01.2022 in Case Crime No. 113 of 2021, under Sections 377, 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner no. 1 and under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner nos. 2 to 4, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad now Ayodhya; chargesheet no. 01 of 2021 and Criminal Case No. 203 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Amarjeet Yadav and others), pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Faizabad now Ayodhya.

¶8

At the very outset, it has been informed at the bar that the matter was sent to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court but the mediation could not be successful and the same has failed.

¶9

The report of Mediation Centre dated 31.10.2023 categorically provides that mediation has been completed without any agreement, therefore, in view of the above, the protection, so given to the petitioners, is hereby vacated.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed the merit of the case by submitting that the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2 is misconceived, inasmuch as family members of petitioner no. 1 have not committed any offence as alleged. He has further submitted that no specific allegation of demanding dowry etc. has been levelled against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who are old aged father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2. In the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., mainly allegations have been levelled against petitioner no. 1 who is husband of opposite party no. 2.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner no. 4 is cousin brother of petitioner no.1 and the allegations, so levelled against petitioner no. 4, are also false and misconceived.

¶12

He has further submitted that so far as the allegation levelled

¶13

against the petitioner no. 1 under Section 377 IPC is concerned, he has submitted that in view of the decision of Apex Court, the wife cannot impose the allegation against her husband in respect of Section 377 IPC. He has also submitted that one divorce Suit has been filed by petitioner no. 1 against his wife on 03.04.2019 before the family court, Faizabad which is still pending consideration. He has submitted that the impugned FIR which has been lodged on 16.03.2021 is a counterblast of the divorce Suit being filed by petitioner no. 1 against his wife, Smt. Anju Yadav, opposite party no. 2. As a matter of fact, on the date of allegations, she was living with her in-laws and not with petitioner no. 1. As per learned counsel, the Investigating Agency has not considered these facts properly and filed chargesheet against the petitioners. Not only the above, while taking cognizance of the chargesheet, the learned trial court has not verified the relevant and cogent materials and took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued summons, therefore, the entire exercise is patently illegal and unwarranted, therefore, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

¶14

Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitioners and have submitted that after proper investigation, the chargesheet has been filed, thereafter the court concerned took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioners, therefore, in these circumstances, the chargesheet and subsequent proceedings may not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that against petitioner no. 1, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 377/498A/323/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, chargesheet has been filed under Sections 498A/323/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against petitioner no. 4, who is cousin brother of petitioner no. 1, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 498A/323/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial court has taken cognizance of the aforesaid chargesheet and issued summons. The law is trite that if on the basis of allegations relating to cognizable offences, the investigation is completed, chargesheet is filed, cognizance is taken by the trial court and summons are issued, unless and until there is any apparent error in the aforesaid process, the High Court while invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not quash those proceedings as the law is trite that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked by the High Court carefully, sparingly and with full caution.

¶16

I have not found anything on record or on the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is any apparent error in the aforesaid process which has been adopted after lodging of the FIR, even chargesheet has been filed on the basis of materials as well as on the basis of statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.. The allegation so levelled against the petitioners may be proved or disproved before the trial court by following the complete trial procedure. The veracity of the

¶17

allegations and charges may not be tested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, therefore, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶18

Notably, the chargesheet which has been filed against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who are old aged father-in-law and mother-in-law, under those sections wherein the punishment is less than 7 years, therefore, if those old aged persons (petitioner nos. 2 and 3) appear/surrender before the court concerned and file their bail application, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in Re: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 , considering the fact that no specific allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against petitioner nos. 2 and 3.

¶19

So far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, the chargesheet against him has been filed under Section 354 IPC wherein the punishment is less than 7 years and since the allegation has been levelled against him by the informant/complainant, therefore, if he appears/surrenders before the court concerned and files bail application, the same may be disposed of with expedition considering the relevant material as well as in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in Re: Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶20

So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he shall appear/surrender before the court concerned and may file the bail application and his bail application may be considered and decided as per law and also considering the relevant material available on record.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 kkv/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amarjeet Yadav @ Lucky Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet Yadav @ Lucky Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. 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

Pooja Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Alok Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home and Another

Laddan Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Ram Diwakar Verma Alias Ramdiwakar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Angad Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.