Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2024A482/5523/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order in a criminal complaint filed by his wife after he petitioned for divorce alleging concealment of her epilepsy before marriage. The High Court found the matter required consideration, issued notice to opposite party no.2 and stayed the impugned proceedings until further order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5523 of 2024 Applicant :- Suraj Singh

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kesarwani,Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Present application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 13.03.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Mohammadi, Kheri in Criminal Complaint No.5002/2023 (Sashi Kiran Vs. Suraj Singh and Ors.).

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is suffering from epilepsy and her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 26.06.2021 without disclosing this fact. He further submitted that opposite party no.2 was behaving strange, and thereafter, she left her matrimonial house and then on the basis of illness of opposite party no.2, petition under Section 13 (1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant before the District Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi on 22.08.2022 and notice was issued. When the notice was served on the opposite party no.2 then the complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that after recording the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order was passed. He further submitted that in the complaint, she has not disclosed this fact that petition under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant due to her ailment. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and submitted that impugned proceeding is a sheer abuse of legal provision, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant and

¶11

submitted that opposite party no.2 was being victimized by the applicant, therefore, complaint in question has been filed. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order, therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, as it is evident that opposite party no.2 filed complaint against the applicant but this fact was not disclosed by her that petition under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant on the ground that he was not informed by the opposite party no.2 about her ailment before their marriage, therefore, matter requires consideration.

¶13

List this case in the first week of September, 2024.

¶14

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

¶15

Until further order, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.6.2024

¶17

V. Sinha

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjeet Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Manjeet Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

Choge @ Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Nalini Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Divya Bajpai Alias Divya Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others