Shakuntala Dubey And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 22773 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9857 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Shakuntala Dubey And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Prashant Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.0060 of 2019, under Sections 323, 498A I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act as well as impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2020 and non-bailable warrant order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Pratapgarh including the charge sheet No.288 of 2019 dated 15.09.2019, under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act in Case No.4303 of 2022 (State vs. Sanjay and others)

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the charge sheet has been filed against the applicants without collecting any evidence whatsoever against them during investigation. He has further submitted that the present F.I.R. is an outcome of the strained matrimonial relation between the son of applicant No.1 and opposite party No.3.

It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there are vague and general allegations against the applicants, namely, Shakuntala Dubey, Ravindra Dubey and Ajay Dubey, who are mother-in-law, brother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of opposite party No.3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

It has also been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations levelled against the applicants are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings on the ground that it is not the stage to look into the disputed questions of facts and evidence. Therefore, the the same is not liable to be quashed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite parties No.2 and 3, returnable at an early date.

Steps be filed within two weeks.

Let counter affidavits be filed within four weeks.

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

List this case after expiry of aforesaid period.

Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2020 or any process issued pursuant thereto shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants, namely, Shakuntala Dubey, Ravindra Dubey and Ajay Dubey only.

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

Order Date :- 23.12.2022

cks/-