Disposed

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

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024A482/720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order notes an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent regarding materiality of allegations. Instead of quashing or dismissing the matter, the court issued a notice to the State, granted time for affidavits, and stayed the impugned order until the next hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Beena Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 720 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Beena Devi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Gurudutt Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have assailed validity of the summoning order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-1, Faizabad in Complaint Case No.8132 of 2018.

¶7

3. Opposite party No.2 filed a complaint dated 12.11.2018 alleging that while she was cleaning a drain at about 8:00 AM on 29.08.2018, applicant No.1 started abusing her but as the complainant was alone, she did not retaliate and went inside her home. All the accused persons came to complainant's house at about 8:00 PM on the aforesaid date and started beating her with kicks, fists and slaps.

¶8

Upon hearing hue and cry raised by her, complainant's son and daughter-in-law ran to save her whereupon applicant No.5, Sanjay Pathak assaulted her due to which, she suffered an injury in her ear and lost her hearing. The complainant further alleges that applicant No.5 snatched away a gold chain from the complainant's neck. Deepu & Chotu, sons of Asharfee Lal and some other persons residing in the vicinity have witnessed the incident. She further stated that the injured person got medically examined in District Hospital, Faizabad. The complainant also mentioned that the accused persons have entered into possession of the complainant's house and they are not vacating the same.

¶9

4. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR allegations. She further stated that her husband was not present at the time of incident and he returned home at about 8:30 whereas the incident had continued for 5 minutes only.

¶10

5. The complainant had produced her son, Rahul Dubey and her husband, Asharfee Lal before the trial court and their statements were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶11

6. Admittedly, Asharfee Lal was not present at the time of incident and he had not witnessed the incident. Complainant's daughter-in-law, Vandana is said to have received an injury in the incident and lost her hearing. It is alleged that she was medically examined on 01.11.2018. However, OPD Ticket of Vandana Tiwari issued on 01.11.2018 at 8:17:52 Hours by the District Hospital, Faizabad mentions 'Decreased hearing b/w 2 months' which indicates that she was suffering from a diminished hearing from both her ears for the past two months. There is no mention of any injury suffered by her on 29.10.2018 in her medical prescription. The complainant was apparently not medically examined on 01.11.2018.

¶12

7. It is also relevant to note here that the alleged injured person, Vandana Tiwari was not produced before the trial court for recording her statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Alleged eye witnesses, Deepu and Chotu were also not examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶13

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs The State of U.P. & Anr : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1711 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after observing that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is bound to see if allegations/accusations constitute any offence or not and the High Court should not accept the bald statement of the complainant, without any material on record to

¶14

support the allegations of causing hurt.

¶15

7. The matter requires consideration.

¶16

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

¶17

9. Four weeks' time is granted to opposite party No.2 to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

10. List in the week commencing 18.03.2024.

¶19

11. Till the next date of listing of the case, order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-1, Faizabad in Complaint Case No.8132 of 2018 shall remain stayed.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 prateek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Beena Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

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

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

Inspector Dadhibal Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Devraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civiil Sectt. Lko.