Disposed

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024A482/19734/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and mother-in-law sought quashing of proceedings including charge-sheet and summoning order in a dowry harassment case. Court refused to quash the proceedings but set aside the summoning order as passed without perusing the charge-sheet, remitting cognizance afresh.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 01.02.2021 set aside; matter remitted for fresh cognizance/summoning; quashing of proceedings refused.

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115331

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19734 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Shukla,Sarvesh Kant Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record..

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 03.09.2020 and summoning order dated 01.02.2021, of Criminal Case No. 109 of 2021 (State vs. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Another), arising out of case crime no. 69 of 2020, under Sections - 498A, 494, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station - Jamalpur, District - Mirzapur, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division F.T.C., Mirzapur.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no.1 is husband and applicant no.2 is mother-inlaw of the informant and the allegations levelled against them are wholly false. In the first information report, it was also alleged that applicant no.1 has remarried with one Julie but during investigation, alleged second marriage was not established and thus Section - 494 I.P.C. was deleted and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. It was submitted that despite these facts, the learned

¶10

magistrate has summoned the applicants for offences under Sections - 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 120-B I.P.C. For offence under Section - 494 I.P.C., no charge sheet has been filed and even otherwise the cognizance for offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. can only be taken on a complaint, as provided under Section - 198 Cr.P.C. and in this case no such complaint was filed. It was submitted that impugned summoning order dated 01.02.2021 is against facts and law and it has been passed in a mechanical manner and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations that applicants have harassed the informant on account of dowry and that applicant no.1 has remarried with his colleague, namely, Julie and thus, offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. is made out.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

So far the question of quashing of impugned proceedings is concerned, in view of allegations levelled in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. There are clear allegations that informant was harassed by the applicants on account of dowry and they used to demand a four wheeler thus, prayer to quash the impugned proceedings is refused.

¶14

However, so far the summoning of applicants under Section - 494 I.P.C. is concerned, it is apparent that during investigation, the investigating officer has found that offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. is not established hence, section - 494 I.P.C. was deleted and charge sheet was submitted for offences under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The observations of the learned magistrate in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024 that

¶15

charge sheet has been filed under Sections - 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. is factually incorrect as much as no charge sheet was filed for offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. Thus, it appears that learned Magistrate has not perused the charge sheet before passing the impugned summoning order. Further, as per provisions of Section - 198 Cr.P.C., cognizance for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be taken only upon a complaint of aggrieved party but in the instant matter no such complaint has been shown. These facts show that impugned summoning order dated 01.02.2021 has been passed in a routine manner without perusing the charge sheet, hence the impugned summoning order dated 01.02.2021 is liable to be set aside.

¶16

In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 01.02.2021, passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Mirzapur is set aside and matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on cognizance/summoning afresh, in accordance with law.

¶17

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.7.2024 S Rawat

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem @ Mohd Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Nishant Diwakar vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Bisht and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harnam Singh vs State of U.P.

Kamaran Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another