Disposed

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024A482/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order arising from a domestic violence case was filed. The court issued notice to the opposite parties, directed the filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits, and stayed the summons and complaint proceedings pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on summoning order and complaint proceedings pending the submission of counter and rejoinder affidavits by the opposite parties.

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 619 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Babu

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 2308010/2019, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Harpal Pur, District Hardoi (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Ram Babu) as well as the summoning order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Civil Judge( Senior Division)/F.T.C Court, Hardoi.

¶8

The opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 16.05.2019 against the applicant and his father, mother, brother and sister, alleging that the applicant got married to the complainant's sister -Shyama Devi (opposite party no.3) on 08.07.2016; all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry and they had turned out of her matrimonial home on 02.08.2016.

¶9

The trial court has summoned the applicant only to face the trial for offences under Section 498-A and 323 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had filed a Suit no. 52/2019 in the court of Principal

¶11

Judge, Family Court, Hardoi for a decree of divorce and the suit has been decreed ex-parte by means of a judgment dated 18.07.2023.

¶12

The matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 returnable at an early date.

¶14

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.

¶15

List this case in the week commencing 19.02.2024.

¶16

Considering the fact that the opposite party no. 3 had left her matrimonial home on 02.08.2016 and the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged on 16.05.2019; that the complaint levels similar allegations against five persons but the allegations against four persons were not believed by the trial court and they have not been summoned to face the trial and that the suit for divorce filed by the applicant in the year 2019 has been decreed ex-parte on 18.07.2023, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the summoning order dated 16.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 2308010/2019, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Harpal Pur, District Hardoi, shall remain stayed.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Preeti.

¶19

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

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Faisal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Pintu @ Tej Bahadur Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shadab Alias Shadab Ahmad and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Dr. R.P. Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Another

Suraj @ Kallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Beena Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another