Allahabad High Court
Smt. Nilam Mitra And Others vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4438 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Nilam Mitra And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Rehan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Syed Ali Rehan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the entire record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, F.T.C., Lucknow in Case No.120177 of 2022 titled as State vs. Shishir Mitra and others, in pursuance of charge sheet dated 10.05.2022 submitted by the investigating officer in Case Crime No.0086 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow as well as the charge sheet dated 10.05.2022 filed against the accused/ applicant in the aforesaid case number.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a false first information report came to be lodged against the accused/ applicants for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act at the behest of opposite party No.2, who happens to be wife of applicant No.4.
5. His further submission is that, in fact, there is serious matrimonial discord between the opposite party No.2 and the applicant No.4, which has given rise to various cases. The applicant No.4 has already filed a petition under Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which is still pending.
6. His next submission is that the allegations against all the applicants including the applicant No.4, the husband of opposite party No.2, are vague and general. Therefore, the instant criminal proceeding deserve to be quashed as the same is gross misuse of process of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted with utmost sincerity that having regard to the nature of dispute, there is every possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties through the process of mediation.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the first information report came to be lodged against the present accused/ applicants by the opposite party No.2. The proceedings are at its early stage. At this stage, rushing to this Court for quashing the impugned proceedings itself is an instance of misuse of process of this Court.
9. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also pointed out that though he is not possessed with the copies of the orders, which were passed in Writ Petition No.27108 (M/B) of 2021 and Writ Petition No.27604 (MB) of 2021 as are mentioned in paragraph No.29 (page No.16) to the instant application. The applicant No.4 was directed to deposit sum amount and thereafter, he was granted protection also, however, the same has not been deposited by the applicant No.4.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant No.4 the husband of opposite party No.2. In respect of applicant No.4, the veracity or otherwise of the prosecution version cannot be determined at this early stage. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant No.4 is made out.
11. Accordingly, prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceeding in respect of applicant No.4, Shishir Mitra, who is the husband of opposite party No.4, deserves to be declined and the same is hereby declined. However, in respect of applicants No.1 to 3, who are mother-in-law aged about 65 years, father-in-law aged about 68 years and sister-in-law of opposite party No.2 respectively, there are general allegation of demanding dowry only against them.
12. So far as applicants No.1 to 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations levelled against them 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.
13. In view of above, the matter requires consideration in respect of applicants No.1 to 3 only.
14. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks by the opposite party No.2.
15. A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.
16. List this case in the week commencing 17.07.2023.
17. Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 03.11.2022 or any process issued pursuant thereto shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants No.1 to 3, namely, Smt. Nilam Mitra, Sukumar Mitra and Shipra Mitra @ Shipra Shriraj.
18. When the case is listed next, the name of Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate shall be shown in the cause list as learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
cks/-
