Lal Ji and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024A482/10837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application for quashing criminal proceedings against six applicants (in-laws of the accuser), the single judge issued notice to the specific opposite party requiring a counter affidavit and instructioned the High Court Advocate General, while temporarily staying execution of process orders only against these applicants.

What did the court decide?

Stay of execution of summoning order and non-bailable warrant only against the present applicants.

Lal Ji and 5 Others vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10837 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Lal Ji And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2024 as well as nonbailable warrant dated 06.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.6079 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 504 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sonwa, District Shrawasti.

¶7

3. 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 6 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar), brother-in-law (Devar), sister-inlaw (Devrani) and sister-in-law (Nanad) 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. He, thus, submits that the impugned criminal

¶8

proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶9

4. 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 .

¶10

5. 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.

¶11

6. 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.

¶12

7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

8. Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

9. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶15

10. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

11. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶17

12. Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated

¶18

02.04.2024 as well as non-bailable warrant dated

¶19

06.11.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants only.

¶20

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 A.Dewal

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lal Ji and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Ji and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Himanshu Sunilkumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Zeeshan Shekh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Anoop Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ranjna Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vikramendra Prasad Bhalla (Arrayed as Vikram Bhalla ) and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another