Remanded

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. & 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A482/17552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside a non-speaking order of the Family Court, which rejected an application for release of attached articles solely based on a police report without examining ownership documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.03.2024 set aside; matter remitted to Family Court to decide afresh after hearing parties and examining ownership documents.

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P. & 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170419

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17552 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah, in Case No.706 of 2023 (Smt Ruchi Yadav Vs. Naveen Kumar), under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Jaswant Nagar, District- Etawah.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is brother of applicant no.3 Naveen Kumar and there was some dispute between Naveen Kumar and his wife Ruchi Yadav. Said Ruchi Yadav was awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, in proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., in execution of recovery warrants, certain articles including refrigerator, laptop, microwave and some utensils belonging to the applicant were attached. The applicant has filed an application before the Family Court concerned for release of said articles but it was arbitrarily rejected by the Family Court concerned vide impugned order dated 15.03.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the articles seized in pursuance to said recovery warrant were not of the husband of opposite party no.4 Ruchi Yadav and thus, the said attachment was illegal but the Family Court has rejected the application of applicant without considering facts and law and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. As per police report, the aforesaid

¶10

articles belong to Naveen Kumar, who is brother of applicant, and thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

Perusal of record shows that in pursuance to proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. initiated by opposite party no.4 Ruchi Yadav against her husband Naveen Kumar, aforesaid articles were attached by the police in execution of recovery warrants against said Naveen Kumar. The case of applicant is that in fact said articles belong to him. It appears that application filed by the applicant for release of said articles has been rejected by a non-speaking order, by merely observing that as per police report, the aforesaid attached articles belong to Naveen Kumar. It appears that the learned Family Court has not considered the documents of the ownership of the attached articles. In view of these facts and circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

In view of aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court concerned to decide the application of the applicant afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as to opposite party no.3 Naveen Kumar and to pass an order afresh, considering the documents of ownership of the said articles produced by the applicant before the Family Court.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 SP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. & 3 Others

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

Mohammad Haleem@ Mohammad Hakeem and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhendru Sharma @ Sanjul vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritika Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another

Kamil and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sadhna and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind Gautam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another