Dismissed

Smt. Harpreet Kaur and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025A482/3863/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a charge-sheet in a matrimonial dispute FIR alleging taking away of the daughter-in-law and valuables. The court, relying on C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh that Section 482 jurisdiction is limited and no mini trial is conducted, dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Harpreet Kaur and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38247

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3863 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Harpreet Kaur And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suyash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajai Kumar,Hari Om Singh,Kunwar Prithvi Tomar,Vivek Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suyash Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicants,Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I, Shri Vivek Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have made the following prayer.

¶8

"(i) quash charge sheet no.66 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020 filed under Sections 323/ 504/ 506/ 406 IPC against Harpreet Kaur (applicant No.1 and under Sections 323/ 504/ 506 IPC against Smt. Surendra Kaur Gujral (applicant No.2) and Hardeep Singh (applicant No.3) and consequential order passed by the Special ACJM, Lucknow"

¶9

Although the prayer clause does not mention all the details of FIR in furtherance of which the impugned charge-sheet has been submitted, it appears from the record that the present case was instituted on the basis of FIR No.639 of 2019 lodged by the opposite party No.2 stating that the applicant No.1 had got married to the son of the informant Gagandeep Singh (opposite party No.3) 25.11.2018. On 09.07.2019, the applicant Nos.2 and 3 came to the informant's house and they took away the applicant No.1 with them. After sometime, all the accused persons again entered the informant's house, threatened to abuse and beat-up the informant and they took away all the valuable articles of the applicant No.1 and they have also took away

¶10

some valuable jewellery of the informant.

¶11

After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 10.01.2020 which has been challenged by means of the present application..

¶12

Although the applicants have sought quashing of the cognizance order, the validity of the summoning order has not been challenged by them. Moreover, the summoning order passed by the trial court has not been annexed with the application.

¶13

Initially an interim order has been passed on 08.11.2021 staying arrest of the applicants in connection with the chargesheet in question. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court by means of an order dated 01.09.2022. The mediation has not resulted into any settlement between the parties

¶14

Assailing validity of the charge-sheet, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on 05.8.2019 on the basis of false allegations, regarding an incident that allegedly took place on 09.07.2019, without disclosing any sufficient cause for the delay in lodging the FIR. He has submitted that earlier,the applicant No.1 has lodged an FIR No.316 of 2019 in P.S.-Mahila Thana, District- Kota City on 05.08.2019 against the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and Ramandeep Kaur Diwan, daughter of the opposite party No.2 and sister of opposite party No.3. After investigation, a chargesheet was submitted in that case against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. He has submitted that the opposite party No.2 has lodged the FIR as a counter blast action.

¶15

Per contra, the learned AGA-I as well as the learned counsel

¶16

for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have submitted that the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly make out a case of cognizable offence by the applicant. The correctness of the allegations has to be examined by the trial Court after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of the allegations.

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 holds that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

¶18

Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 -Amit K-

¶21

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

Smt. Harpreet Kaur and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Harpreet Kaur and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjali Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Devesh Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Indrajeet Alias Nankhe Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kavit Kumar Singh @ Kavit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Lal Bahadur Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Narayan Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another