Vijay Kumar Pathak And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5477 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15810 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pathak And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Aushim Luthra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the opposite party no.1-State.

2. This application has been filed seeking setting aside of the summoning order dated 25.04.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.635 of 2019 (Gitanjali Pathak vs. Vijay Kumar Pathak & Ors.) as well as the judgment and order dated 26.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2022 (Vijay Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. & Anr.).

3. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the alleged incident pertaining to which the criminal complaint was filed before the Magistrate, occurred nearly 10 years after marriage and there is a chance of settlement between the parties through mediation and, therefore, this case may be referred to Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar as well as the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2022 reveal that the opposite party no.2 was being harassed for not producing a male child and she was beaten up and turned out of the house by the applicants alongwith her small girl child. The opposite party no.2 was medically examined in the Government Hospital but since no report was lodged by the concerned Police Station, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate. The orders impugned further reveal that there is sufficient material before the Magistrate for summoning of the applicants and, therefore, the orders impugned cannot be faulted.

4. Given the nature of the accusation made by the opposite party no.2, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to be referred for mediation at this stage.

5. This application is, accordingly, rejected leaving it open to the applicants to apply for bail/discharge before the appropriate Court, if so advised.

Order Date :- 27.6.2022

SK

(Jayant Banerji, J.)