Disposed

Smt. Shanti and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024A482/9936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge noted it was not a stage to adjudicate disputed facts in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court issued notice to the opposite party and granted a temporary stay on execution of the summoning order pending the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on execution of the summoning order dated 03.05.2024 pending hearing of the notice.

Smt. Shanti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9936 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shanti And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Samrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of warrant or summons Criminal Case No.6854 of 2023, under Sections 494 and 498 I.P.c., Police Station Harchandrapur, District Raebareli, pending before the learned Court 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Raibareli against the applicants and also quashing the impugned order of summoning dated 03.05.2024 passed by learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli in Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No.6854 of 2023, under Sections 494 and 498 I.P.c., Police Station Harchandrapur, District Raebareli.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that apart from the other allegations, opposite party no.2 had also lodged an F.I.R. bearing no.0380 of 2022, under Sections 394, 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. against the applicant no.1 and two other persons in respect of the incident which is stated to have occurred on 04.08.2022.

¶8

His further submission is that subsequently, another complaint came to be lodged which gave rise to summoning order dated 03.05.2024. It also refers to the incident which was allegedly committed on 04.08.2022. He, thus, submits that the present criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

¶9

His further submission is that the instant proceeding is an outcome of the strained

¶10

matrimonial relationship between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that this is not a stage where such disputed facts may be adjudicated. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires consideration.

¶13

Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned A.G.A.

¶14

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

¶15

Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶17

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

List this case after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶19

Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the applicants, namely, Smt. Shanti and Pankaj.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Mahesh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shanti and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Sushmita Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Kunwar Brahma Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Shasi Kant Anan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Rajjan @ Rajjan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Revenue Lukcnow and Ors.