Partly allowed

Rohit Prtap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2024A482/11756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash summoning order and complaint case involving Sections 498A IPC and DV Act. Court refused quashing for husband (applicant 1) due to corroboration but accepted notice for wife. Stay granted on summons for remaining family members (applicants 2-4) for now.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of summoning order and proceedings refused for applicant No.1; proceedings stayed for applicants No.2 to 4; notice accepted from wife.

Rohit Prtap Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11756 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Prtap Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Nripendra Mishra,Vinay Pratap Singh Rathore

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2023 as well as entire proceeding of complaint case no.118098 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the innocent applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that the applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2. There are serious matrimonial discord between applicant No.1 and opposite party No.2, due to which a false complaint came to be filed against the present applicants. It is also submitted that the applicants No.2 to 4 are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party No. 2, respectively, who have no concern with the day to day matrimonial affair of opposite party no.2 with her husband/applicant no.1. In view of the above, it is argued that the impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2023 is nothing but a malicious prosecution.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar and others vs. State of Bihar and others : (2022) 6 SCC 599 .

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the records including the impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2023, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint in respect of applicant no.1, who is the husband of opposite party no.2, have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this initial stage, no ground for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2023 in respect of applicant no.1 is made out.

¶13

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 01.08.2023 in respect of applicant No.1, who is the husband of opposite party no.2 is refused.

¶14

However, in respect of applicants No.2 to 4, who are the family members of the applicant no.1, the matter requires consideration.

¶15

Notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

¶16

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

¶17

Steps be taken within a week.

¶18

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶19

A week's thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶20

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶21

Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2023 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the applicant nos.2 to 4 only.

¶22

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 20.12.2024 A.Dewal

¶24

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

Rohit Prtap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Prtap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Alias Gulshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ramesh Chand @ Ramesh Tyagi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Jai Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Urooz Raza @ Badshah and 3 Others vs U.P. Sarkar Dwara Pramukh Sachiv Sachiyalaya Hazratganj Lko. and Another