Km. Mamta (Mamta Prajapati) ... vs The State Of U.P And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 300 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1499 of 2013
 
Petitioner :- Km. Mamta (Mamta Prajapati) (Complaint Case)
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

1.  This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek quashing of complaint Case No.1221 of 2012 under Sections 494/109 I.P.C., Mata Prasad v. Sheo Prasad and others, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Faizabad.

2.  Learned counsel, in brief, contends that the ingredients of Section 494 Cr.P.C. are not satisfied and, therefore, there is no material available on record of the Magistrate's Court to summon the petitioner and others for commission of offences vide order dated 28th of January, 2013.  It has been stated that daughter of the respondent-complainant Mata Prasad was married to one Sheo Prasad.  Father of the petitioner was mediator in the marriage.  Marriage, however, was not successful.  Multiple litigations in that regard are going on and so as to mount pressure on the petitioner in that context and so as to harass him on account of failed marriage of daughter of the respondent-complainant, the complaint has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner got married to Sheo Prasad and is living with her as husband and wife.

3.  Learned counsel has drawn attention of the court towards the complaint wherein even date of marriage is not given.  It has not been given that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rituals.  All that has been stated is that the petitioner got married to Sheo Prasad in November, 2010 and is living with him as wife.  Likewise, attention has been drawn towards the statements recorded by the court under Section 200 and Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  None of the witnesses was witness to the marriage and none of them have stated even the date of marriage.  It has been argued that the factum of marriage is required to be proved for invoking Section 494 I.P.C.

4.  Issue notice to respondent no.2 Mata Prasad through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, returnable on 13.5.2013.

5.  Further proceedings in the case against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Order Date :- 4.4.2013/A.Nigam