In a writ petition challenging the Revisional Court's order quashing a summoning order, the petitioner alleged false implication during a marital dispute. The High Court held that no interference was required as the revisional court correctly set aside the summons based on available materials.
Present petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15824
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6072 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sweety Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Singh
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Criminal Revision No.205 of 2018; Bharat and Others vs. State of U.P. and another, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate nature to maintain the summoning order dated 06.10.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda in Complaint Case No.186/2017 Sweety vs. Bharat and Others; relating to Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda, passed against the opposite party Nos.2 to 6.
c...
d..."
dispute amicably and they entered into a compromise but when the harassment and torture made to the petitioner was not stopped, then the petitioner approached the concerned police station to initiate a legal proceeding against the opposite party No.2 to 6 but the police did not take any action due to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Complaint Case No.186 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda on 19.01.2017. He further submits that on the basis of said complaint case, statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., thereafter, on perusing the materials available on record as well as the statements of the petitioner and witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the allegations leveled against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 are true and summoned the opposite party Nos.2 to 6 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide summoning order dated 06.10.2017.
party Nos.2 to 6 in a criminal prosecution so that in the grab of some order by this Court, she can mentally harass and torture the opposite party Nos.2 to 6, thus, no interference in the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 is required by this Court as learned revisional court has rightly passed the said order after considering the materials placed before it and has set aside the summoning order dated 06.10.2017.
10.No order as to cost(s).
Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Piyush/-
Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional order setting aside the summoning order in a freezing/property-related matrimonial dispute alleging false implication.
Whether the trial court erred in summoning accused persons for allegations of dowry demands and mental harassment.
Sweety Prajapati
State Of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
