Single judge application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. Petitioner, in-laws brother, claims false implication. Court issued notice, stayed coercive action temporarily, and listed for further arguments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1428 of 2024
Applicant :- Abdul Waheed @ Abdul Wahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rayees Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
"For the facts reason and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quashed/ set-aside the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 480/2021 Shaleemun Nisha Vs Abdul Kalam and others, Under Section 498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C., Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur and Summoning order dated 19-1-2022 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court, Balrampur, so far as relates to the petitioner in the interest of justice.
It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to stay entire proceeding of the the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 480/2021 Shaleemun Nisha Vs Abdul Kalam and others, Under Section 498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C., Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur and Summoning order dated 19-1-2022 passed by the Civil Judge(J.D.), Fast Track Court, Balrampur, so far as relates to the petitioner during pendency of this petition in the interest of justice."
against the petitioner. The present petitioner has been falsely implicated so as to harass him without having any cogent material to that effect. Attention has been drawn towards the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , wherein the Apex Court has observed in para-20 that the family members of the husband are unnecessary dragged in matrimonial dispute in a casual manner. For the convenience para-20 of the aforesaid case is being reproduced herein below:-
" 20 . Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding."
" 28 . We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal is accordingly allowed."
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 19.2.2024 RBS/-
Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC should be quashed in a case where the petitioner is a brother-in-law falsely implicated to harass him.
Whether the petitioner is liable to coercive action during the pendency of the application for quash.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶15
(2012) 10 SCC 741 : re; Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Waheed @ Abdul Wahid
State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.
And Another
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
