Disposed¶19

Smt. Suman Alias Jaimala and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025A482/3535/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application; interim order keeping proceedings in abeyance; matrimonial dispute; counter-blast complaint; section 406 IPC; summoning order without application of mind; FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Case Crime No. 44 of 2013; charge sheet 13.9.2015; notice to husband/opposite party no. 2; Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1 Agra; Sikandara police station.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: notice issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date; proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 kept in abeyance till the next date of listing (8.5.2025); the prayer to quash the criminal case is yet to be finally decided. ¶19

Smt. Suman Alias Jaimala and Another vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 under section 406 IPC, instituted by opposite party no. 2 shortly after the FIR lodged by applicant no. 1, is a counter-blast / misuse of the process of law warranting quashing of the criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that applicant no. 1 is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and that the complaint case was filed as a counter blast against applicant no. 1, the Court found that the matter requires consideration.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶17

Key takeaways

Till the next date of listing (8.5.2025), the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 under section 406 IPC, Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra, are to remain in abeyance.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 84), single bench of Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J. — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3535 of 2025 (order dated 8.4.2025) by Smt. Suman alias Jaimala and another seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding arising from the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 (Jyotimay Vs. Smt. Suman @ Jaimala & others) for the offence under section 406 IPC, Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra. Applicant no. 1 is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and applicant no. 2 is her father-in-law; applicant no. 1 had lodged an FIR on 26.2.2013 (Case Crime No. 44 of 2013, Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Mahila Thana, District Agra), on which a charge sheet was filed on 13.9.2015; the complaint case was submitted to be a counter-blast filed by opposite party no. 2 on 28.2.2013, two days after the FIR, only to harass applicant no. 1 into compromising and withdrawing the FIR, and the summoning order was contended to have been issued without application of mind. Finding the counter-blast allegation to merit consideration, the Court issued notice to opposite party no. 2, directed listing on 8.5.2025, and kept the proceedings in the complaint case in abeyance till the next date of listing. Interim order; final merits not adjudicated.

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3535 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Suman Alias Jaimala And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 (Jyotimay Vs. Smt. Suman @ Jaimala & others) for the offence under section 406 IPC , Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that applicant No. 1 is wife of opposite party no. 2 and applicant no. 2 is father-in-law of opposite party no. 2.

¶8

It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that applicant no. 1 is living separately from her husband (opposite party no. 2) and living in her paternal house. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not paying any maintenance to applicant no. 1 and her children.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that applicant no. 1 has lodged FIR against the accused husband (opposite party no. 2) and other family members on 26.2.2013 in Case Crime No. 44 of 2013, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at police station - Mahila Thana, District - Agra.

¶10

After completion of the investigation, police has also filed charge sheet in the said case against opposite party no. 2 and his other family members on 13.9.2015.

¶11

It is further submitted that since applicant no. 1 has filed FIR against opposite party no. 2 and his family members on 26.2.2013, therefore, on the counter blast, opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint case against applicant no. 1 and her family members on 28.2.2013.

¶12

It is next submitted that complaint case is nothing but gross misuse of process of law filed by opposite party no. 2, husband of applicant no. 1, only for the purpose to harass applicant no. 1 to compromise the matter and to withdraw the FIR and any other criminal case against opposite party no. 2.

¶13

It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the court concerned has not taken into consideration all the facts of the case and issued summon order without application of mind.

¶14

It is vehemently argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the entire proceeding under the aforesaid section, criminal case may be quashed.

¶15

It is admitted that applicant no. 1 (wife of opposite party no. 2) has lodged FIR against her husband and his family members on 26.2.2013 and the complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 after two days of lodging the FIR.

¶16

On taking into consideration of the facts that applicant no. 1 is wife of opposite party no. 2 and also taking into consideration of the said complaint case which was filed as a counter blast against applicant no. 1, the Court find that the matter requires consideration.

¶17

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

¶18

List on 8.5.2025.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 3719 of 2024 (Jyotimay Vs. Smt. Suman @ Jaimala & others) for the offence under section 406 IPC , Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra shall be kept in abeyance.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 S.K.S.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Suman Alias Jaimala and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suman Alias Jaimala 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

Radheshyam vs State of U.P.

Ram Krishana Mishra, Retired Sub- Inspector vs Shri Shiv Pujan Singh the Finance Controller, Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarters and Another

Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari vs Rakesh Kumar, District Inspector of Schools and Another

Naiyyar Alam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of U.P.

Lokendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another