Allahabad High Court
Deepshikha And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107828
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6992 of 2024
Applicant :- Deepshikha And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Kumar Sharma,Ghan Shyam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Kumar Baisla
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. In this application, applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by A.C.J.M., Court-2, Muzaffarnagar whereby applicants are summoned to face trial under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Relevant part of order is quoted below :-
????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????, ????????, ????????, ??????? ?? ????-???? ???? ? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????, ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? 200 ???????????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? 202 ???????????? ?????????? 1 ????? ???? ????????? ?? ?????????? ? ????????? ? ?????????-? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ??????, ????????, ????????, ??????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ????? ?? ????-???? ???? ? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???
??????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????????/????????? ??????, ????????, ????????, ??????? ?? ??????? ???? 406, 323, 504, 506 ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ??????, ????????, ????????, ??????? ?? ???? 406, 323, 504, 506 ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????
2. Applicant no.1 is daughter in law of complainant whereas other applicants are relatives of applicant no.1.
3. Sri Ghan Shyam, learned counsel for applicants submits that on basis of above referred order, not a single offence is made out against applicants as ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not made out as well as there is no injury report on record. He also refers statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and for reference same is quoted below :-
????? 200 ????????????
?????? - 20.10.2023
??? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ????, ???? 58 ????, ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????, ??????- ?????, ???? ??????, ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? -
???? ?? ?? ???????, ??????, ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? 24.03.2023 ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????-??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????
????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???, ?????????, ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???
To court -
????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????
????????
20.10.2023?
4. Learned counsel also submits that initially FIR was lodged against complainant side by applicants in regard to some matrimonial dispute as well as divorce proceedings were also initiated.
5. Sri Mohit Kumar Baisla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed above submissions and refers statement of witnesses that applicant no.1 and other applicants have taken certain documents, cheque book, etc., therefore, offence under Section 406 IPC is made out, however, he is not able to convince this Court that any reason has been assigned in impugned order that offence under Section 406 IPC was made out.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, considering the contents of impugned order as well as statement recorded during proceedings and in this regard, the Court also takes note of Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 that requisite reasons are not mentioned in impugned order. The ingredients of offence under Sections 406 IPC that any property was in any manner entrusted to applicants is absent as well as there is no injury report on record. Court also takes note that in view of Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 INSC 683, ingredients of Sections 504, 506 IPC are also not made out.
7. In view of above the impugned order is passed in the teeth of Lalankumar Singh and Mohammad Wajid (supras), therefore, it is a fit case where inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised.
8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by A.C.J.M., Court-2, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 33266/09/2023 (Arvind Kumar vs. Kamaldeep and others) under Sections 460, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shahpur, District- Muzaffarnagar, pending before A.C.J.M., Court-2, Muzaffarnagar is set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Court to pass a fresh order after taking note of above referred judgments.
9. This application is disposed of with above observations/directions.
Order Date :- 3.7.2024/N. Sinha
