Smt Yatha Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 380 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Yatha Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68608
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27502 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Yatha Agarwal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and Sri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying to quash the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Agra (Smt. Yatha Agarwal vs. Amit Agarwal and others), passed in Misc. Case No.1394 of 2024, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Kamla Nagar, District-Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with brother of O.P. no.2 on 22.02.2009. He further submitted that the applicant filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with an allegation that O.P. no.2 has committed rape on her on the point of knife. The said application has been treated as a complaint case by order dated 23.07.2024, which has been assailed by means of instant application. He submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the court below in most arbitrary manner without considering the material available on record and also contrary to the provisions of prevailing law.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 vehemently opposed the application and contended that police report dated 26.02.2024 clearly shows that no such incident ever had occurred. He submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order well within his jurisdictional limitation after analyzing the evidence available on record in its right perspective. He further submitted that the trial court has every right to treat an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on judgments passed in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185.

5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, after perusing the record and also taking into account the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, I find no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order and there seems no good ground to interfere with the same. The instant application is devoid of merits.

6. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Manish Himwan