Allahabad High Court
Tabssum And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2018
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27339 of 2018
Applicant :- Tabssum And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori,Surendra Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, 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 23.02.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Agra in Complaint Case No. 2075 of 2017 (Imran Khan Vs. Tabssum and others) under Sections 406, 420 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lohamandi, District-Agra as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the wife of the opposite party no.2. The applicant no.2 is the father whereas the applicant no.3 is the mother of the applicant no.1. The applicant nos. 4 and 5 are the brothers of the applicant no.1.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of the applicant no.1-Tabssum was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 Imran Khan on 28.02.2014 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Custom. However, subsequently, the relationship between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 became incompatible and reached a point of no return. Consequently, the applicant no.1 left her marital home on 27.12.2016 and started living with her parents. Faced with despair and destitution, the mother of the applicant no.1, namely, Smt. Hussanara (the applicant no.3 herein) lodged a non-cognizable report dated 25.06.2017. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as a complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. etc was initiated by the applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and his family members.
On the aforesaid factual premise, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that as a counter blast to the aforesaid three criminal proceedings, the details of which have categorically been mentioned in paragraphs 10,11 and 12 of the affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has now filed a complaint dated 11.08.2017 giving rise to the above mentioned complaint case. He thus submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the court. It is next contended that the present criminal proceedings have been engineered to wreak vengeance on account of criminal proceedings initiated against opposite party no.2 and his family members by the applicant no.3 and thereafter, by the applicant no.1. Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another 2009 (1) JIC 245(SC) in support of the aforesaid proposition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record, the matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 calling upon him to file a 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 this Court, further proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018
YK
