Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishun And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 24 August, 2018
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13506 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Kishun And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 15th May, 2017, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddhartha Nagar in Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017 (Ram Brikch vs. Ram Kishun & Others), under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddhartha Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of the applicant no.3 Chandrawati, daughter of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 25th April, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Subsequently, the relationship between the applicant no.3 and the opposite party no.2 became incompatible and ultimately reached at a point of no return. Consequently, the applicant no.3 left her marital home and came back to her parental home on 18th March, 2015. Faced with despair and destitution, the applicant no.3 launched criminal proceedings against the opposite party no.2, details of which have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2, who is none else but the son-in-law of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 and husband of the applicant no.3, are a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant no.3, details of which have already been mentioned in paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application.
He further submits that the present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint giving rise to the above mentioned complaint case has been filed subsequent to the summoning of the opposite party no.2 and his family members in the complaint case filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 498A I.P.C. etc. and subsequently to the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that the present criminal proceedings, which have been engineered to wreak vengeance, are liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. & others vs. Harihar Singh & Another reported in 2009 (1) JIC 245 (SC).
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. or the State, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and upon perusal of the material brought on the record, matter requires consideration.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1.
Issue notice to opposite party No.2, calling upon him to file counter affidavit.
All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.
List on the date fixed in the notice.
Until further orders of court, further proceedings of above mentioned complaint case, shall remain stayed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.)
Order Date :- 24.8.2018
Sushil/-
