Disposed

Mithlesh Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024A482/7548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court heard an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023/428 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of a summons order in a domestic dispute case. The applicant contested the summoning as frivolous and noted contradictions in the complaint and subsequent dismissal of revision. The court found a prima facie case for interference.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the proceedings initiated in pursuance to the complaint case no.13575 of 2022

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7548 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mithlesh Pandey And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aviral Raj Singh,Eshita Bhasin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week.

¶7

All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks to which the petitioners may file reply within next two weeks. List after expiry of the aforesaid period on the date to be indicated by the office in the notice.

¶8

Instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.181 of 2024 in re: Mithilesh Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and another, by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Gonda, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. Also under challenge is the summoning order dated 04.07.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.11, Gonda, whereby the petitioners have been summoned for an offence under Section 452, 380 and 504 IPC.

¶9

The contention is that respondent no.2/complainant is the husband of petitioner no.2, petitioners no.1 and 3 are the family members of petitioner no.2 while the petitioners no.4 and 5 are distant relatives of petitioner no.2. The marriage of petitioner no.2 was solemnized with respondent no.2 in the year 2019. Subsequently, a dispute arose between petitioner no.2 and respondent no.2 which led respondent no.2 in filing an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As the said case was decided ex-parte an application for recall is said to have been filed by the petitioner no.2 as orally stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Not succeeding in the said case, a complaint has been lodged by respondent no.2 alleging that on 20.12.2022 the petitioners had barged into the house of respondent no.2 and are alleged to have taken away the goods, utensils, jewellery, clothes worth rupees three lakhs, about one

¶10

lakh sixty in cash and a motorcycle.

¶11

It is contended that despite there being contradictions in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has issued the summoning order dated 04.07.2022 against which the revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2024.

¶12

It is contended that the frivolous nature of the allegations as levelled in the said application would be apparent from the fact that although it had been contended that the petitioners had taken away a motorcycle but the said motorcycle is registered in the name of petitioner no.4 as would be apparent from perusal of the certificate of registration, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though in the RC a different number has been indicated i.e. '4821' vis-a-vis the complaint which indicates the number as '4621' yet as per the averments made in paragraph 22 of the petition the vehicle number as mentioned in the complaint belongs to a 4 wheeler i.e. a Wagon R Car and not a motorcycle.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie, a case for interference is made out. As such, till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the proceedings initiated in pursuance to the complaint case no.13575 of 2022 in re: Salikram Tiwari vs. Vibhav Pandey and others.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 A. Katiyar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mithlesh Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Smt. Manjula Tiwari vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 8 Others

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Mohd. Riyaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another