Disposed

Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024CRLP/7319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a summoning order in a matrimonial dispute alleging violation of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. The bench observed prima facie non-adherence to mandatory provisions due to jurisdictional location differences and stayed proceedings pending notice to the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Notice to opposite party; proceedings before trial court stayed pending return of date.

Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7319 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Anas Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mohd. Anas Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay, Ramchandra Upadhyay and Ashutosh Upadhyay with the following prayers:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2023 (Sanyogita Upadhyay & Others Vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as the impugned summoning order dated 02.03.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 7507 of 2016 "Gyan Prakash Vs. Ramchandra" under sections 457 & 380 IPC pertaining to Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya including entire consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua the applicant, as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 to the writ Petition.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to stay the entire consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2023 (Sanyogita Upadhyay & Others Vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as the impugned summoning order dated 02.03.2022 passed in Complaint Case No 7507 of 2016 "Gyan Prakash Vs. Ramchandra" under sections 457 & 380 IPC pertaining to Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya, qua the applicant, as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 to the writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in any nature which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶10

(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused persons while drawing the attention of this Court on the copy of a complaint placed on record, vehemently submits that the father-in-law (father of husband of petitioner no.1) has lodged a complaint against petitioner no.1 (his daughter-in-law), petitioner no.2 (father of petitioner no.1) and petitioner no.3 (brother of petitioner no.1), alleging highly improbable and concocted allegations and the magistrate without discussing the factual matrix on the anvil of probability and without adhering to the mandatory provisions contained under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C. has issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. summoning the petitioners to face trial for committing offences under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C., which they have never committed.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that this illegality has also not been taken into consideration by the revisional court and the submissions made before the revisional court has also been brushed aside while discussing some legal precedents without discussing the factual matrix of the case.

¶13

It is further submitted that summoning in a criminal case is a serious business and, therefore, it was the duty of the magistrate to take into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and if a probable primafacie case was emerging, it was on that condition the petitioners might have been summoned, while it was evident on record in the instant case that the case pertains to the matrimonial dispute.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand supported the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

¶15

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case made by learned counsel for the petitioners/accused persons, it is reflected that primafacie Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. appears to not have been adhered to by the magistrate. It appears to be an admitted situation that complainant/respondent no.2 is a resident of Police Station Haiderganj, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, while the accused persons are resident of Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the magistrate concerned to comply the provisions contained under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., as amended up to date.

¶16

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, matter requires consideration.

¶17

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2/complainant, returnable till the next date of listing.

¶18

Steps in this regard be taken by learned counsel for the petitioners, within 02 working days from today.

¶19

List this case on 7th November, 2024.

¶20

In the meantime, the proceedings of the above case, pending before the trial court, shall remain stayed.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Praveen

¶22

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

Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sanyogita Upadhyay and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

Mudrika vs Subash Singh, S.D.M., Ambedkar Nagar

Ram Gopal vs Mitesh Chandra, Registrar ( Birth and Death )/ Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Distt. Pratapgarh

Dr. Narbadeshwar Pandey vs Smt. Pratima Goel, Vice Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University Ayodhya and Others

Ashwani Pratap Singh vs Shri Pradeep Singh Baghel, Dir. Basic Education, Lko. and Another

The Elders Committee, Central Bar Association Thru. Its Chairman Raebareli and Others vs Ram Naresh Verma, Chairman So-Called Elders Committee, Central Bar Association Raebareli and Others

Ravindra Srivasatava vs Rajendra Kumar Shukla