Dismissed

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/25532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court refused to quash matrimonial proceedings involving an applicant alleged to have entered a bigamous marriage. The court held that the allegations required trial and dismissed the quashing application, advising the applicant to seek discharge later.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash criminal proceedings and summons order dismissed; applicant advised to file discharge application at trial stage.

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145608

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25532 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.15261 of 2023 (Baburam vs. Ashish and others), under Sections 494, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Line, District-Budaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun and summoning order dated 13.12.2023 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case the applicant is working in Navy and was posted at Delhi then at Mumbai and now transferred to Kochchi as INS Inspector. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 3 is his wedded wife and opposite party no. 2 is father-in-law. There are two children from the wedlock. There is matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, but with false allegations present complaint was filed before the learned court by the father of the wife. It is also submitted that false allegation was made that the applicant was living in relation with Sonia Sharma in Delhi and also entered into marriage with her. False photographs were also produced before the learned court showing the marriage between both of them. The injuries said to be caused to opposite party no. 3 are also fabricated. No any marpeet was committed by the applicant with his wife. The applicant never lived in relation with Sonia Sharma and also never entered into marriage with her. She never lived with him in Agra and no any expenses was borne by the applicant for Sonia Sharma. The expenses of opposite party no. 3 and her children are being borne by the present applicant. The allegation that Sonia Sharma has shown the applicant as husband in the papers is also false. In this regard the statement of wife-Sangeeta Devi and Singhraj Singh were recorded before the learned court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. There is no any other evidence on record to show that

¶9

applicant misbehaved with his wife opposite party no. 3 and entered into marriage with Sonia Sharma. Learned trial court did not consider all these facts, but passed the order of summoning dated 13.12.2023 in which he summoned the present applicant & Sonia Sharma and exonerated other opposite parties made in the complaint. In this way, the summoning order passed against the applicant cannot be said to be legal and based on material on record in conformity with law, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case and the order of summoning.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the applicant being an Inspector in Navy was posted at Delhi and he came into relation with Sonia Sharma and developed illicit relation and then entered into marriage with her without divorce with the previous wife. Previous wife Smt. Sangeeta Devi was also examined before the learned court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which she disclosed this fact. The applicant and his second wife Sonia Sharma also made assault on her several times. There were photographs showing that the applicant and Sonia Sharma entered into marriage and both were shown as husband and wife in the papers. In this way, it cannot be said that learned court concerned did not consider all these facts and passed the order against the facts on record.

¶11

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., order passed by learned court concerned, statements of Smt. Sangeeta Devi and Singhraj Singh recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it appears that there is allegation of second marriage with Sonia Sharma by the applicant without giving divorce to the previous wife and also there was marpeet with previous wife by the applicant. The photographs and papers are showing both of them as husband and wife without divorce to the previous wife. There appears no any other ground for granting indulgence in favour of the applicant, therefore, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused. However, applicant may have an option to move application for discharge before the learned court concerned at an appropriate stage, which shall be heard and decided by the learned court on the basis of material on record in accordance with law.

¶12

Accordingly, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶14

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

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Munne Lal and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rijha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Kalyan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushinder vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziya Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Another