Dismissed

Himanshu Awasthi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024A482/13479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to interfere with the impugned summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., dismissing the application filed by applicants. The court held that the complaint pertained to a civil dispute over partition based on a will culminating in an occurrence causing injury. The summoned witnesses responded to the summons, and the court found no sufficient ground to quash the order.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Himanshu Awasthi and Another vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157778

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13479 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Himanshu Awasthi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Ashish Pandey,Bipul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brijendra Singh,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Chandra Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2.

¶7

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of impugned summoning order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint No. 230534 of 2022 (Abhishek Awasthi vs. Himanshu Awasthi and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

The parties are related to each other and there appears to be a dispute with regard to partition on basis of a Will.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants submits that it is a case where a dispute which was essentially of civil nature is given colour of criminal offence. Applicants have no motive to commit alleged occurrence which has been initiated only to put pressure on applicants. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Kamlesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:105288.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has supported impugned order that applicants have earlier also committed same occurrence.

¶11

I have considered the above submissions in the light of impugned summoning order dated 19.10.2023, which is quoted hereinafter:

¶12

"पतत्रावलली आज आददेशत् र ार पदेश हहयली। पररिवत्रादली कदे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कको तलवली बहस कदे

¶13

वबबिंदद परि पपूवर वनयत वतधर परि सदनत्रा जत्रा चदकत्रा हहै। .- सबिंकदेप मम पररिवत्राद पत कत्रा करत्रानक इस प्रकत् र ा हहै वक पररिवत्रादली कत्रा मकत्रान सबिं 127/209 न्यपू ब्लत्राक वनरित्रालत्रा नगरि रत्रानत्रा वकदवई नगरि मम ससरत हहै। उपरिकोक मकत्रान सव. मदनली अवसरली कदे नत्राम सदे हहै. धजनककी ममृत्यद वदनत्राबिंक-11.06.2018 मम हको चदककी हहै। पररिवत्रादली ककी दत्रादली नदे वसलीयत मम उपरिकोक मकत्रान कत्रा आधित्रा वहससत्रा पररिवत्रादली व उसकदे वपतत्रा कदे नत्राम वकयत्रा रत्रा। वसलीयत कदे बत्राद सदे ववपकलीगण रिबिंधजश रिखनदे लगदे रदे व पररिवत्रादली कदे वपतत्रा कदे सत् र ा ददरयरवहत् र ा करिनत्रा शदरू करि वदयत्रा। घटनत्रा वदनत्राबिंक-23.10.2022 रित्रात कदे 8 बजदे ववपकली वहमत्राबिंशद अवसरली नदे जत्रान सदे मत् र ानदे ककी धिमककी ददेतदे हहए पररिवत्रादली कदे वपतत्रा कको डरित्रायत्रा धिमकत्रायत्रा। उनकदे सत् र ा दको अजत्रात रयवक व मनलीष अवसरली भली रदे उन्हहोंनदे गत्रालली गललौज व मत् र ापलीट भली ककी औरि गलत्रा दबत्रानदे कत्रा प्रयत्रास वकयत्रा। उपरिकोक कदे स ब िंबिंधि मम प्रत् र ार्थी नदे स ब िंबिंधधित रत्रानत्रा पदधलस सदे वशकत्रायत ककी तको पदधलस दत् र ात्रा पररिवत्रादली ककी वशकत्रायत दजर नहहीं ककी गयली। अततः ववपकलीगण कको तलब करि दबिंवडत वकयदे जत्रानदे ककी यत्राचनत्रा ककी गयली हहै।

¶14

पररिवत्रादली कत्रा करत्रानक, पररिवत्रादली व सत्रावकयहों कदे बयत्रानहों सदे समधररत हहै। पररिवत्रादली दत् र ात्रा अपनदे करन कदे समररन मम आधित् र ा कत्राडर ककी छत्रायत्राप्रवत दत्राधखल ककी गयली हहै। सदनत्रा व पतत्रावलली कत्रा अवलकोकन वकयत्रा गयत्रा।

¶15

अवलकोकन सदे वववदत हकोतत्रा हहै वक ववपकलीगण परि पररिवत्रादली कदे सत् र ा मत् र ापलीट करिनदे, गत्रालली गललौज व जत्रान सदे मत् र ानदे ककी धिमककी ददेनदे कत्रा आरिकोप हहै। पररिवत्रादली नदे अपनदे बयत्रान अबिंतगरत धित् र ात्रा-200 दबिं.प्र. सबिंवहतत्रा मम पररिवत्रादली दत् र ात्रा सवयबिं कको परिलीवकत करित्रायत्रा गयत्रा हहै। बयत्रान अबिंतगरत धित् र ात्रा-200 दबिं.प्र. सबिंवहतत्रा मम पररिवत्रादली नदे करन वकयत्रा हहै वक घटनत्रा वदनत्राबिंक23.10.2022 रित्रात कदे 8 बजदे ववपकली वहमत्राबिंशद अवसरली नदे जत्रान सदे मत् र ानदे ककी धिमककी ददेतदे हहए पररिवत्रादली कदे वपतत्रा कको डरित्रायत्रा धिमकत्रायत्रा। उनकदे सत् र ा दको अजत्रात रयवक व मनलीष अवसरली भली रदे, उन्हहोंनदे गत्रालली गललौज व मत् र ापलीट भली ककी औरि गलत्रा दबत्रानदे कत्रा प्रयत्रास वकयत्रा। धित् र ात्रा-202 दबिं.प्र. सबिंवहतत्रा मम पली.डब्लपू, 1 वहमत्रानली बत्राजपदेई व पली. डब्लपू, 2 मम प्रदलीप कदमत् र ा अवसरली कको परिलीवकत करित्रायत्रा गयत्रा हहै धजन्हहोंनदे भली पररिवत्रादली कदे उक करनहों कत्रा समररन वकयत्रा हहै। अततः मत्रामलदे कदे तथ्यहों एवबिं पररिससरवतयहों कको दृवष्टिगत रिखतदे हहए ववपकलीगण वहमत्राबिंशद अवसरली व मनलीष अवसरली कको धित् र ात्रा-323, 504, 506 भत्रा.दबिं.सबिं. कदे अबिंतगरत तलब वकयदे जत्रानदे कत्रा आधित् र ा पयत्ाप्त हहै। र

¶16

आददेश

¶17

ववपकलीगण वहमत्राबिंशद अवसरली व मनलीष अवसरली कको धित् र ात्रा-323, 504, 506 भत्रा.दबिं.सबिं. मम - अबिंतगरत न्यत्रायत्रालय मम ववचत् र ाण हदेतद जररियदे सम्मन वदनत्राबिंक 20.11.2023 तलब वकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै। पररिवत्रादली उवचत पहैरिवली करिम, सपूचली गवत्राहत्रान दत्राधखल करिदे।"

¶18

It is not the case of applicants that there is any major contradiction with regard to occurrence took place on 23.10.2022. Contradiction, if any, with regard to nature of partition would not have any effect on present case, if statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are consistent and there is not much dispute that they are consistent.

¶19

The Court also takes note of judgment passed in Kamlesh Singh (supra), however, facts of said case are absolutely different from present case. Here is a case that due to a dispute of partition on basis of a Will, both parties have prior enmity which is culminated in an occurrence wherein complainant’s side has received injury. Nature of occurrence does not mandatorily required any medical report. Above referred impugned order has assigned requisite reasons as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. (See, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248)

¶20

In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere. Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 AK

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Awasthi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Awasthi and Another 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

Keshav Prasad Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Pratap Singh vs State of Up and 6 Others

Smt Mamta @ Mamta Dagar vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Gautam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another