Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shahrukh Alias Shahrukh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98867
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15024 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd. Shahrukh Alias Shahrukh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Udai Bhan, learned AGA for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7 Allahabad as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2021 (Smt. Sana Begam Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh), under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Atarsuiya, District Prayagraj, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Allahabad.
Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that despite direction of this Court by order dated 25.04.2023 in 482 application no. 14702/2023, the court below rejected his application for examination of mental condition of the opposite party no. 2.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that for the purpose of assessment of mental condition the court has also called upon the doctor who was treating the opposite party no. 2 and he clearly stated that the opposite party no. 2 was getting treatment for mood disorder and it is not appropriate to say that the person who is suffering from mood disorder is also insane person.
After hearing the rival submission of the counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it appears that the applicant had filed an 482 application no. 3701/2022 challenging the order by which the application to examine the mental condition of the opposite party no. 2 was rejected. That application was rejected by this Court by order dated 17.02.2022 on the ground that dispute raised by the applicant regarding mental status of opposite party no. 2 is disputed question of fact that can be considered during trial. Thereafter, applicant again moved an application on 22.03.2022 which was rejected on 17.01.2023 that order was also challenged by the applicant by way of 482 application no. 14702 /2023 this application was also disposed of by order dated 25.04.2023 permitting the applicant to move application regarding the assessment of mental condition of opposite party no. 2 at appropriate stage which shall be considered by the court. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment dated 25.04.2023 passed in 482 application no. 14702/2023 is being quoted as under:-
"7. The applicant moved an application before the trial court on 22.03.2022 annexing the order of this Court dated 17.02.2022 also with the prayer to direct for mental examination and assessment of the opposite party no.2 which has been rejected as not maintainable at this stage.
8. In view of the above, it is open for the applicant to again move an application for the assessment of the mental condition of the opposite party no.2 at the appropriate stage which shall be considered by the trial court by passing appropriate order as per law."
The applicant thereafter again moved an application on 08.05.2023 before the concerned court during the proceeding u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act. In this application the Court has summoned Dr. Abhinav Tondon who was treating the opposite party no. 2, during his examination Dr. Abhinav Tondon stated that the opposite party no. 2 was getting treatment for mood disorder it was also deposed by the him that mood disorder is not the insanity but the medicine prescribed by him some time are also used in depression. After considering the statement of the doctor the court below had rejected that application by order dated 17.03.2024 mentioning therein that medical history of the opposite party no. 2 is not relevant during the proceeding of Domestic Violence and not mentioning the same in Application will not amount concealment of material fact.
This Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, accordingly the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
Nisha
