Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18340

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2507 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Arjita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now 528 of BNSS), the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda in Complaint Case No.22544 of 2021 thereby issuing summon to the petitioner on the complaint made by the opposite party no.2 under Section 498 of the IPC.

¶8

The allegation against the petitioner in the said complaint which has been made by the real brother is that he has enticed away the legally wedded wife of his brother which is an offence under Section 498 of the IPC. After examining the complainant and other witnesses, the summon has been issued to the petitioner which has been assailed in the present petition. The only ground for assailing the said order dated 04.06.2022 with the fact that under Sections 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only within three years as the offence in the present case is punishable by a maximum sentence of two years or fine or both. In this regard, he has stated that as per statement of the complainant, the petitioner is living with Smt. Nikka since 2014 and the cognizance of the said incident has been taken in 2022 which is

¶9

beyond the period of three years.

¶10

Learned AGA, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the fact as to when the married lady is living with the petitioner is a question of fact and can be very well decided by the trial court after ascertaining the said fact to its satisfaction which can be taken after taking adequate evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial court and obtained bail and is participating in the proceedings.

¶11

Considering the rival contentions, the only question raised by the petitioner in the present petition is with regard to the Bar of Limitation as provided under Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. where the cognizance in the matters were the punishment is below three years, can be taken within a period of three years.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that no objection in this regard has been taken by the petitioner before the trial court and no reason for not moving any such application has been stated by him.

¶13

This Court is also considered view that the date from which the married lady is living with the petitioner is a question of fact which can safely be ascertained by the trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced and the application, if any, in this regard by the applicant can be duly considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. It has been stated that the trial is at the stage of recording of statement of witnesses under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. and counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that he can still move an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. which may be considered and decided by the trial court. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move

¶14

appropriate application for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and before conclusion of the stage of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. In case, such an application is made, the trial court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law with expedition,

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of .

¶16

[ Alok Mathur,J. ]

¶17

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 KR

¶18

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

Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narendra Mohan @ Neeraj Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ankur @ Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sharafat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Risiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Chetram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another