Sarla and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2025A482/32652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C.; quashing; summoning order dated 14.08.2024; bailable warrants dated 08.11.2024; contemptuous orders; appearance through advocates permitted; no coercive action till disposal; Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009; Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; protest petition after final report dated 27.08.2006; FIR dated 22.07.2006; P.S. Kudaud; District Jalaun; Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun; order dated 02.05.2024; interim protection dated 12.11.2010; Application No. 34889 of 2010.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the trial court's orders dated 10.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and all subsequent orders whereby coercive process was issued (including the bailable warrants dated 08.11.2024), with a direction to the trial court to proceed in the complaint case treating the advocates' presence as the applicants' presence. ¶¶30

Sarla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether, having regard to this Court's order dated 02.05.2024 permitting the applicants to appear through their advocates and barring coercive action against them till final disposal, the trial court could lawfully issue coercive process (summons and bailable warrants) against the applicants pending the complaint case. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

In view of the clear and categorical order dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Court, it was not permissible for the trial court concerned to issue any coercive process against the applicants till the final disposal of the complaint case.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The orders dated 10.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and 08.11.2024 passed by the trial court, and all subsequent orders whereby coercive process was issued, were contemptuous in nature and stand quashed.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to proceed in the complaint case treating the presence of the applicants' advocates as the presence of the applicants.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 32652 of 2024) by Sarla and another — respectively mother-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 — seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 14.08.2024 and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009 (Seema Tiwari vs. Bhola Nath Tiwari) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kudaud, District Jalaun. The complaint arose from a protest petition treated as a complaint case after a final report dated 27.08.2006 on an FIR dated 22.07.2006 lodged following the death of the complainant's husband on 20.06.2006; the applicants were summoned on 21.06.2010. Their earlier application (No. 34889 of 2010) had been disposed of on 02.05.2024, permitting appearance through advocates, barring coercive action till disposal, and requiring completion preferably within six months. Notwithstanding, the trial court issued summons on 14.08.2024 and bailable warrants on 08.11.2024 despite the advocates' recorded presence. Holding such issuance impermissible, the Court declared the orders dated 10.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and all subsequent coercive orders contemptuous in nature, quashed them, and directed the trial court to proceed treating the advocates' presence as the applicants' presence.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128885

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No.11)

¶4

Court No. - 78

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32652 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Sarla And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the instant application.

¶9

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 14.08.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009 (Seema Tiwari vs. Bhola Nath Tiwari) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kudaud, District Jalaun, pending in the court of civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 was the daughter-in-law of the applicant no.1 and the applicant no.2 is the son of applicant no.1 and brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was married to the son of the applicant no.1 namely Vineet Tiwari on 20.02.2006. Unfortunately, the husband of opposite party no.2 died on 20.06.2006. Thereupon the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR dated 22.07.2006 against the applicants and the husband of applicant no.1. The matter was duly investigated and final report was submitted on 27.08.2006, whereupon the protest petition was filed by the opposite party no.2, which was treated as a complaint case. After recording the statement of witnesses, the applicants along with the husband of applicant no.1 have been summoned vide order dated 21.06.2010. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that immediately after lodging of the FIR, the husband of applicant no.1 died on 25.07.2006. Thereafter the applicants herein filed an Application under Section 482 No. 34889 of 2010 and the said application was finally disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2024, which reads as under :

¶12

"Re: Criminal Misc. Amendment Application

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

¶14

2. Application is allowed.

¶15

3.The specific prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case is hereby taken as the part of the prayer as made in the application.

¶16

Order on Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶18

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.06.2010 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009 (Smt. Seema Vs. Bhola), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., PS Kuthond, District Jalaun, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶19

3. It is the case of the applicants that allegation whatsoever has to be put forward to the complaint culminated into summoning of the applicants vide order dated 21.06.2010 specifically against father-in-law who died immediately after three days from the date of lodging the F.I.R. After conducting the detail enquiry, final report has been submitted by the concerned Enquiry Officer under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., whereupon protest petition has been preferred on behalf of opposite party no.2 and thereafter, matter has been taken up as a complaint case registered as Complaint Case No.746 of 2009 wherein the applicants have been summoned which arises cause of action in favour of the applicants for institution of the instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, applicant no.2 being the widow mother-in-law is having age of 72 years and applicant no.3 is the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 who had been minor at the time of lodging the F.I.R. by the opposite party no.2. The interim protection has already been granted by co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the admission stage itself vide order dated 12.11.2010 through which the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009 (Smt. Seema Vs. Bhola), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., PS Kuthond, District Jalaun, has already been stayed.

¶20

4. After pendency of the instant application for more than 13 years no fruitful purpose will be served to keep the matter pending at the behest of the interim order extended in favour of the applicants. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun is hereby directed to expedite and finalize the proceedings of the aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

5. It is made clear that applicants will be permitted to appear before the concerned Court through their Advocates and till the disposal of the proceedings of the aforementioned case, no coercive action shall be taken up against the applicants herein.

¶22

6. The instant application U/S 482 stands disposed of."

¶23

While disposing of the said application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has categorically permitted the applicants herein to appear before the court below through their advocates and in the proceeding no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants herein. Subsequent thereto, the applicants herein filed an application on 10.07.2024 before the court below to record the appearance of the applicants through Advocate and proceed in the matter. On the said date, the trial court passed the following order:

¶24

"Record presented. Complainant appeared. Ld. Advocate for accused appeared and presented application for exemption.

¶25

Heard and record perused.

¶26

After perusal of records it is clear that by order dated 02.05.2024 Hon'ble High Court Allahabad have given direction to dispose of this case preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy and no coercive action against accused is also ordered by Hon'ble Court. Both the accused Sarla and Sumit are not bail out, so without granting bail, how is possible to conclude the proceedings within six months. Ld. Advocate have denied to produce the accused for bail."

¶27

Thereafter, vide order dated 14.08.2024, the trial court proceeded to issue summons to the applicants herein and vide order dated 08.11.2024, the trial court has proceeded to issue bailable warrants against the applicants herein, despite the presence of the Advocates before the court below, which is noticed in the order sheet.

¶28

In view of the specific order dated 02.05.2024, it was not permissible for the trial court concerned to issue any coercive process against the applicants till the final disposal of the complaint case. In view of the clear and categorical order dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Court, the subsequent orders passed by the trial court dated 10.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and 08.11.2024 are contemptuous in nature. Therefore, the orders dated 10.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and all subsequent orders whereby the coercive process have been issued by the trial court are quashed.

¶29

The trial court is directed to proceed in the matter treating the presence of the Advocates as presence of the applicants in the complaint case.

¶30

The instant application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶31

The certified copy of the order dated 08.11.2024, which had been handed over by learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record, whereby the trial court has issued bailable warrants against the applicants herein.

¶32

Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Ashish Pd.

¶33

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Trial court's summoning order dated 14.08.2024 issuing summons to the applicants and subsequent coercive orders, including bailable warrants issued on 08.11.2024, passed despite the presence of the applicants' advocates and contrary to this Court's order dated 02.05.2024 barring coercive action till final disposal of the complaint case.¶¶27
Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun · 14.08.2024
Prior proceeding
Opposite party no.2 married Vineet Tiwari (son of applicant no.1) on 20.02.2006; he died on 20.06.2006; she lodged FIR dated 22.07.2006 against the applicants and the husband of applicant no.1.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Investigation concluded with submission of final report on 27.08.2006; opposite party no.2's protest petition was treated as a complaint case.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
After recording statements of witnesses, the applicants along with the husband of applicant no.1 were summoned vide order dated 21.06.2010.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Applicants' earlier Application under Section 482 No. 34889 of 2010 was finally disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2024, which permitted them to appear through their advocates, barred coercive action till disposal of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009, and directed finalisation of the proceedings preferably within six months.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Interim protection granted by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the admission stage vide order dated 12.11.2010, staying the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2009 (as recorded in the reproduced order dated 02.05.2024).¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Subsequent to the order dated 02.05.2024, the applicants applied before the court below on 10.07.2024 to record their appearance through Advocate and proceed in the matter; the trial court declined exemption without bail, observing that both accused (Sarla and Sumit) were not bailed out.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Text of the trial court's order dated 10.07.2024 refusing exemption without bail while acknowledging this Court's six-month disposal directive and bar on coercive action.¶¶26

Sarla and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarla and Another v. State of U.P. 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