Allowed

Saurabh Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024A482/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed a Domestic Incident Report and consequent summon because the District Probation/Protection Officer failed to provide prior notice and hearing to the petitioners before preparing the report, violating Section 9 and 10 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

What did the court decide?

The Domestic Incident Report dated 18.04.2023 and the consequent summon dated 02.06.2023 are quashed/set aside. Petitioners are permitted to appear before the District Probation/Protection Officer on

Saurabh Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1756

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 63 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saurabh Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dilip Singh, petitioner No.2 in person and learned AGA.

¶7

Sri Dilip Singh, petitioner no.2 has stated that since the other co-petitioners are family members of him therefore he will argue this case on behalf of the co-petitioners.

¶8

Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶9

"To quash the impugned Domestic Incident Report dated 18.04.23 submitted by Opposite Party No.2 Along-with its consequential Notice for Summon dated 02.06.23 issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Case No.7030/23 Dipanjali Singh Vs. Saurabh Singh & Other as well as impugned case no.7030/23 under challenged U/S 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in the interest of Justice otherwise applicants Shall suffer irreparable loss and Injury which can not be compensate in terms of money.

¶10

To stay the proceeding of Case No.7030/23 Dipanjali Singh Vs. Saurabh Singh & Others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh."

¶11

By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the Domestic Incident report dated 18.04.2023 passed by District Probation/Protection Officer, Pratapgarh, opposite party no.2 and its consequential notice/summon issued by the Court concerned in case No. 7030 of 2023, Dipanjali Vs Saurabh Singh & Others.

¶12

The main contention of the petitioner is that while issuing the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2023 no prior notice has been issued to the petitioners and provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been violated. He has further submitted that though the domestic incident report has been made the basis of the order dated 18.04.2023 but there is no domestic incident report strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioners were provided an ample opportunity before preparation of domestic incident

¶13

report, they would have informed the court concerned that there is no case of domestic violence against the victim. However, petitioner no.2 has fairly stated that due to inadvertence he could not implead the complainant Smt. Dipanjali Singh as one of the parties in the present case, therefore he may be permitted to implead Smt. Dipanjali Singh as opposite party no.3.

¶14

Petitioner no.2 has cited one judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Priti Gupta Vs. Pramod Gupta in C.R.R. No. 3157 of 2014 with C.R.A.N. No.3784 of 2014 by submitting that the facts and circumstances of the case dealt by the Calcutta High Court is similar to the present case. The Calcutta High Court has categorically observed that for making domestic incident report proper opportunity should be afforded to the opposite party.

¶15

Petitioner no.2 stated that though the order dated 18.04.2023 provides that one notice dated 27.03.2023 was issued against the petitioners to appear before the authority to record their statements on 01.04.2023 but it has not been indicated as to whether that such notice has been served upon the petitioners or not. Sri Dilip Singh has stated that no such notice has been ever served upon the petitioners, therefore, they could not appear before the District Probation/Protection Officer and could not defend their case.

¶16

Learned AGA has however stated that the Magistrate is in power to pass any appropriate order even in absence of domestic incident report, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 live law (SC) 474 but on the point as to whether the notice dated 27.03.2023 has been served upon the petitioners is not clear in the order dated 18.04.2023, learned AGA cannot say that the notice dated 27.03.2023 has been served upon the petitioners and for that he may be given sometime to seek instructions.

¶17

Be that as it may, since it is not clear that the notice dated 27.03.2023 has been served upon the petitioners nor the specific fact that the notice has been served upon the petitioners is mentioned in the order dated 18.04.2023, so the petitioners could not appear before the court concerned, as only this much has been indicated that the notice has been issued.

¶18

Therefore, prima facie it appears that ample opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners. Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 clearly indicates that before making incident report proper opportunity should be provided to the opposite party and all

¶19

relevant documents including the copy of complaint should be provided to the opposite party so that they could put up their defense properly. But aforesaid legal provision has not been followed in its letter and spirit, therefore, I do not find any good ground to permit the petitioner to implead the complainant Dipanjali Singh as opposite party no.3 and to issue notice to her, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to her.

¶20

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed on the aforesaid limited ground to the effect that ample opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners before preparation of domestic incident report. The order dated 18.04.2023 passed by District Probation/Protection Officer in case No. 7030 of 2023 (Dipanjali Singh Vs. Saurabh Singh & Other) is hereby quashed/set aside. Consequently, the impugned summon dated 02.06.2023 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in case no.7030 of 2023 is also set aside.

¶21

Since the petitioners have come to know about all the details/documents/material of this case therefore they are permitted to appear before District Probation/Protection Officer, Pratapgarh on 18.01.2024. The District Probation/Protection Officer, Pratapgarh shall pass appropriate order on the complaint of Smt. Dipanjali Singh strictly in accordance with law by affording ample opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners as well as Smt. Dipanjali Singh.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall intimate this order to Smt. Dipanjali Singh and the authority concerned shall also ensure that this order be apprised to Smt. Dipanjali Singh/complainant at the earliest.

¶23

It is needless to say that appropriate order would be passed by District Probation/Protection Officer, Pratapgarh at the earliest by following due procedure of law.

¶24

No order as to cost.

¶25

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Vipul

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saurabh Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Ram Diwakar Verma Alias Ramdiwakar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Angad Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jyoti Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Braj Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Dayal Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another