HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6267 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar And Others Respondent :- Additional Session Judge (Twarit Nayayalaya) & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.B. Paul Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Sudhir Dixit Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Shri. Promod Kumar, holding brief of Shri. B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure-7) and 6.2.2002(Annexure-9) to the writ petition passed by Judicial Magistrate (I) Bulandshahar and order dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure-12) to the writ petition passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Court No. 18, Bulandshahar.
3. In a complaint case under section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, filed by complainant Smt. Radha, accused revisionist Ravindra Kumar, Bholamber, Smt. Bhooriya, Dalvir, and Virendra were summoned to face trial. An application was filed by accused revisionists stating that no prima facie case is made out against them and even before filing of complaint, divorce had taken place between husband and wife. This application was rejected by Judicial Magistrate(I) vide order dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Thereafter, accused revisionists filed two Revisions being Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2002 and 136 of 2002 against orders dated 31.5.2001 and 6.2.2002, respectively. The Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 24.9.2002 rejected both the revisions. Aggrieved thereto, this revision has been preferred by accused-revisionists herein.
4. It is said, allegations were made in the complaint that harassment and torture committed by revisionists on 25.3.2001, while there was a decree dated 26.8.2000 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Aligarh decreeing suit of divorce filed by revisionists Ravindra Singh against complainant. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid judgment and decree, allegations of harassment and torture on 25.3.2001 stands falsified and orders passed on alleged harassment by Courts below, are ex-facie, illegal and shows non application of mind.
5. In the counter affidavit wife has stated that she was not aware of pendency of Case No. 362 of 1999, wherein ex-parte decree of divorce was passed on 26.8.2000.
6. When there was already a decree passed on 26.8.2000 granting divorce to parties, I find substance in the submission that there was no occasion of any harassment or torture of respondent wife by husband on 25.3.2001 and in what circumstances it could happen, has not been explained in the counter affidavit. It clearly shows that allegations made against petitioners, are false. The complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioners. It is a sheer abuse of process of Law.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure-7) and 6.2.2002(Annexure-9) to the writ petition passed by Judicial Magistrate (I) Bulandshahar and order dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure-12) to the writ petition passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Court No. 18, Bulandshahar are hereby quashed.
8. Certify the judgment to the Lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 30.10.2015 Arshad