Allahabad High Court
Jagpat And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. .And Another on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23167 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagpat And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. .And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra,Brajesh Nath Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the impugned complaint proceedings, bearing Complaint Case No.6076 of 2020 (Sarita Prajapati vs. Ramkesh Prajapati & others) pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Azamgarh as well as to quash the consequent impugned summoning order dated 24.03.2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act and also prays to stay the further proceedings of the aforementioned case.
It is submitted that in this case the applicants are inmates of opposite party no.2 who is wife of Ramkesh Prajapati. The marriage between co-accused Ramkesh Prajapati and complainant was performed on 04.05.2000 and from the wedlock two children were born. Later on, husband and wife went to Mumbai in relation to employment where some dispute arose between both of them regarding which N.C.R. No.940/2018 & 307/2019 were filed by the complainant on 18.02.2019 against her husband and all other members of his family living at Azamgarh those are 9 in numbers and are father-in-law, brothers-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. The applicants have no any interest in making demand as alleged in the complaint or to harass the complainant but on account of mutual dispute between husband and wife they have been involved in this complaint with false allegations. Even learned court concerned did not consider all these facts while passing the order dated 24.03.2021 and summoned all the applicants alongwith husband. Learned counsel for the applicants relied his submissions on the basis of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others (2012) 10 SCC 741.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the case including the summoning order.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of record, it appears that the marriage between the complainant and her husband Ramkesh Prajapati was performed in the year 2000 and from the wedlock two children were born. Thereafter, in the year 2018 both of them went to Mumbai in relation to employment where on account of mutual dispute two N.C.R. were lodged by the complainant against her husband. Later on, this complaint was filed by her against her husband while including all these applicants those are related to him. In such a situation where complainant and her husband were living at Mumbai and the applicants were living at Azamgarh, it cannot be said that they, after lapse of 18 years, made demand of dowry and harassment of the complainant as alleged by her in the complaint which appears to be unnatural. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the court concerned while passing the order for summoning dated 24.03.2021. In view of the facts as aforesaid and the law as propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others (2012) 10 SCC 741 the order in question cannot be said to be proper and just in the eyes of law.
Hence, the summoning order dated 24.03.2021 is, hereby, set aside and court concerned is directed to pass the order afresh after considering the material on record and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned case.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Ashok Gupta
