Application under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash summoning order as applicants are falsely implicated relatives due to matrimonial discord. Court issued notice to opposite party and stayed proceedings qua applicants pending further submissions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10322 of 2024
Applicant :- Bechelal Gautam And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.2836 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act.
3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the instant application during the course of day.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present innocent applicants have been falsely implicated in this case because they are the relatives of the husband of opposite party no.2 and there is a serious matrimonial discord between the opposite party no.2 and her husband. He has also submitted that the applicant nos.1 to 5 are father-in-law, motherin-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-inlaw (Nandoi) respectively, of the opposite party
no.2. His further submission is that there are vague and general allegations against the present applicants, who have no concern with the day to day matrimonial affair of the opposite party no.2 with her husband/co-accused, Ranju Gautam. He, thus, submits that the impugned criminal proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 .
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration in respect of the present applicants only.
8. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.
9. Steps be taken within a week.
10. Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks.
11. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.
12. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
13. Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants only.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 19.11.2024 A.Dewal
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants, who are relatives of the accused's spouse and allegedly falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord, are an abuse of the process of the Court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶11
Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464
Kahkashan Kausar and others vs. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶11
Kahkashan Kausar and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bechelal Gautam And Others
State Of U.P.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ajai Kumar Srivastava
Parties & counsel
