Disposed

Raziya Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024A482/3554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants sought quashing of a summoning order in a dowry harassment case. The court issued notice to the state and stayed proceedings against the applicants pending further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite parties; proceedings against applicants in Complaint No. 1624/2022 stayed till next listing.

Raziya Bano and Another vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3554 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Raziya Bano And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Siddiqui,Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arshad Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Barabanki in Complaint No. 1624/2022, under Section 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haidargarh, District Barabanki: Anjum Bano Vs. Shamim Ahmad and others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party No.2. The applicant No.1 is the sister-in-law of the opposite party No.2 and applicant No.2 is the daughter of the applicant No.1.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have no concerned at all regarding the affairs of opposite party No.2 and her husband. He further submits that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are living separately from the opposite party No.2 and her husband and in support of his argument they have filed copy of the "pariwar register" and "ration card" collectively as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that it is a case of separate living and whatsoever the allegation made in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated and after thought and was lodged only to give gravity to the offence. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that whatever the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. regarding demand of cash of Rs. 2 lacs and motor cycle and causing cruelty is false and fabricated. They are not the beneficiary of the said demand of dowry.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case being family members of the husband of the opposite party No.2 and they are living separately. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and submits that the case of the applicants is totally covered by the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus he prays for interim relief.

¶12

The matter requires consideration on facts and law, both.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1.

¶14

Let notice be issued to opposite party No. 2 by Registered Post A.D.

¶15

Steps be taken within ten days.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as the opposite party No. 2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

¶17

List this case on 31.07.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint No. 1624/2022, under Section 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haidargarh, District Barabanki: Anjum Bano Vs. Shamim Ahmad and others), so far as it relates to present applicants, shall remain stayed.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2024

¶20

Arvind

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raziya Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raziya Bano and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Geeta Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Yogendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abdul Samad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile Delinquents X (1) Thru. His Grandmother (Nani) in Case Crime No. 191/2023 and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjeet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another