Disposed

Kamal Kishore Gaur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024A482/201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order and warrant, the High Court stayed the proceedings pending notice to the opposite party and filing of affidavits while noting allegations of a property dispute prompting the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the proceedings of the case, summoning order, and bailable warrant till the date of next listing.

Kamal Kishore Gaur and 3 Others vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 201 of 2024 Applicant :- Kamal Kishore Gaur And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A-I for the State.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed validity of the summoning order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow as well thebailable warrant dated 28.04.2023 and the entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 3649/2021 (Vimal Kishore Gaur Vs. Kamal Kishore Gaur and ors.).

¶7

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the complainant is younger brother of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 and uncle of applicant no. 3 and 4. He alleged in the complaint that because of the harassment by the applicant no.1 and 2 he had to leave his ancestors' house. On 13.03.2020, when the complainant and his family members had gone to attend a marriage ceremony, the applicant no. 1 who is 64 years old elder brother of the complainant, molested the complainant's wife. When the complainant intervene, the other accused persons came there and the applicant no.4 assaulted the complainant's son with a fork and the other accused persons also assaulted them and the applicant no.1 tried to strangulate him.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the father of the applicant nos.1 and 2 and the opposite party no. 2 Pandit Radha Krishna Gaur, died on 11.012.2007 after executing his last will dated 05.05.1998 in favour of his grand sons- the applicant nos.3 and 4 and Vaibhav Gaur, the son of the opposite party no. 2. Son of opposite party no. 2 was given a rear portion of the house and it was provided that no outsider can live in that portion. It was prohibited that the house could be let and it was further provided in the last will that in case any of the legatees wanted to sell his portion he can sell the same to the other co owners only. Vaibhav Gaur let out the premises to a outsider, which was opposed by the applicants. Thereafter, Vaibhav Gaur tried to sell of the property to an outsider. The applicant field a suit for injunction and in appeal, an injunction order dated 07.11.2014 was passed restraining any person from transferring the property to any outsider or from handing over possession of the same to any outsider. Since then, there are serious dispute going on between the parties, which have lead to filing of numerous F.I.Rs from both the sides.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present complaint filed by the younger brother of the applicant no.1 and 2, alleging molestation of his wife by his 64 years old elder brother is patently malicious and is actuated by the on going property dispute between members of the same family.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the preset case is squarely cover by sub para 7 of para 102 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶13

The opposite party may file a counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

¶14

List this case in the week commencing 12.02.2024.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the aforesaid case and the summoning order dated 10.08.2023 and the bailable warrant dated 28.04.2023 shall remain stayed.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Preeti.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamal Kishore Gaur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishore Gaur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. 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

Smt. Mithlesh Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Deptt. Got. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Govind Prasad Bajpai vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Smt. Moni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Triveni Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others vs Om Prakash Chaudhary

Surendra Pratap Pathak and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another