Disposed

Meenakshi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024A482/11394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge decides on Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings, noting a territorial jurisdiction defect. Court adjourns matter to allow filing of counter affidavit and rejoinder before scheduling hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party no.2; case adjourned for counter affidavit and rejoinder; impugned summons suspended qua applicants.

Meenakshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11394 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Meenakshi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Muqeet Khan,Farhan Alam Osmany Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.3752/2022 : Ram Shri vs. Meenakshi and others , under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao as well as summoning order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that a false complaint case came to be lodged at the behest of opposite party No.2, who happens to be mother-in-law of applicant No.1 due to various pre existing dispute between the parties.

¶8

His further submission is that the crux of dispute between applicant No.1 with her husband, who is son of opposite party No.2, therefore, in order to exert undue pressure, this false criminal case has been filed by the opposite party No.2. He has further submitted that instant proceedings is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is an instance of abuse of process of Court.

¶9

Before concluding his submission, he has drawn attention of this Court to page 27 of this application, to demonstrate that the complainant is resident of Unnao. The incident is stated to have occurred in District Unnao whereas the accused persons belong to District Lucknow. They do not reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned who has passed the

¶10

impugned order without complying the mandatory provision as contained in proviso 202 Cr.P.C. He, thus, submits that the impugned order is patently illegal which deserves to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration.

¶13

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

¶14

Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. 11. A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the week commencing 03.02.2025 .

¶17

Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 04.06.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants No.1 to 4, namely, Meenakshi, Savitri, Hansu and Pradeep only .

¶18

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Shubhankar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meenakshi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobhit Yadav @ Mohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Lateeq Alias Laheek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shadman Khan @ Mohammad Shadman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

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