Allowed

Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024A482/10723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an order summoning applicants under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for matrimonial offenses. The Court found merit in arguments that the complainant's Statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. lacked specific references to alleged occurrences made the basis of the charge-sheet, implying general omnibus allegations. Following Supreme Court precedents, the set-aside order was remanded with a direction to is

What did the court decide?

Impugned order summoning applicants set aside. Matter remanded to Trial Court to pass fresh order after hearing complainant taking note of submissions.

Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar and 6 Others vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134782

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case : - APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10723 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and Sri R.K.Mishra, learned A.G.A.

¶7

In the present case, applicant no.1 is husband of O.P. No.2 i.e. complainant, whereas other applicants are his close relatives.

¶8

By impugned order dated 29.1.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. all the applicants (7 in numbers) have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants submits that in complaint, complainant has referred four occurrences. Firstly, that soon after her marriage on 17.6.2022 applicants have committed cruelty with her. Secondly, on 27.10.2022 they have committed an offence of criminal misappropriation of trust. Thirdly, it was further alleged that on 27.3.2023, complainant was thrown away from her matrimonial house and fourthly on 1.8.2023, all applicants came to parental house of complainant, where they committed offence of hurt, insulted her and extended threat.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicants further submits that on basis of specific allegations for above referred occurrence occurred on 27.3.2023, the complainant has filed an F.I.R. also against eight persons on 2.4.2023 and according to his instructions after investigation, charge-sheet was filed, however, details thereof are not on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicants further submits that aforesaid fact was not disclosed by complainant as well as by witnesses despite their statements were recorded much thereafter. The complainant has not even referred about alleged occurrence took place on 1.8.2023 in her statement recorded under Section 200

¶12

Cr.P.C. There are general and omnibus allegations against all applicants.

¶13

In order to appreciate above referred submissions, I have carefully perused statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced hereinafter:

¶14

बययान पररिवयाददी अअंतररत धयारिया 200 सदी.आरि.पदी.सदी.

¶15

"17.10.23

¶16

नयाम सपनया उम्र 21 सयाल पपुतदी उदय ससअंह ननवयासदी रयाअंव अडडया, मरगोरियार, मथपुरिया नन सशपथ बययान नदयया:-

¶17

17.06.22 , मनरिद शयी ददा ी कग अशगो क को न सयथ हा हई थद। शयी ददा की न बयद सा न हद अशगी को , , , , सपुनदतयी नवनगदो नटअंक ययदरा ियमा धननयय औरा ि रिमनश मपुझसन दहनज कक मयी ाअंर करिन लरन। कहनन लरन दहनज मम 1 लयख रा ू० लयओा अं। 27.10.22 कग मो अपनदम दी नवरियनदा कन सयथ चया य पदा री िहद थदी । उकी ्त सभद लगी र मो नरिन कमरिन मम आयन औरि बगलो न चगरो िद , चकयरा िद हगी रो िहद ही अपनन जनवरि हमम दन दग। हमनो न जनवरि दन नदयन। उन लगरगो नों न हम 27.03.23 जरूरित पडद तगी जो नवरि वयनपस भदा नहही नदयीं न। कग उन सब लगो रगो नों हमम मयरा िपदट करी ि घरि सन ननकयल नदयया । तब सा न म मयम यका न मम रह रि िहद ही ह । और ।" कपु छ नहह कहनयीं हा

¶18

I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that in above referred statement, no reference has been made in regard to alleged occurrence which took place on 1.8.2023 as well as it was also not disclosed that an occurrence allegedly took place on 27.3.2023, she has lodged an F.I.R. on 2.4.2023, whereas above referred statement was recorded much after on 17.10.2023.

¶19

In aforesaid circumstances, I find further merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that there are general and omnibus allegations against all applicants, therefore, facts of present case as well as submissions on law are squarely covered by a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein after considering various judgments of Supreme Court viz., Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar

¶20

and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 it was observed as follows:-

¶21

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶22

[emphasis supplied]

¶23

10 In aforesaid circumstances, I find that impugned order dated 29.1.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mathura in Complaint Case No,.55695 of 2023, (Sapna Vs. Ashok & Ors) under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura does not legally survive and therefore is hereby set-aside.

¶24

Considering that this order is passed even without issuing notice to O.P. No.2 , therefore, matter is remanded to learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order within a period of three months from today after hearing the complainant taking note of above submissions.

¶25

With aforesaid observations/direction, this application is disposed of.

¶26

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 SB

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar and 6 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Khelawan @ Nanak @ Sajan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Mittal vs State of U.P. and Another