SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay Rathor And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 November, 2019


?Court No. – 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 39088 of 2019

Applicant :- Ajay Rathor And 7 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahar Lal Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Namman Raj Vanshi

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

It is has been contended on behalf of the applicants that the summoning order dated 15.05.2019 is not based on any material on record, thus the same is not legally justified. The court below failed to take note of fact that mere bald averments cannot be counted against the applicants and cannot be construed as participation of the applicants in the very crime. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there is no specific material roping in the applicant nos.2 to 8, who happen to be mother-in-law, father-in-law, jeth, jethani and aunt of opposite party no.2, who have been falsely implicated in this case just because they happen to be relatives of applicant no.1- the husband. Therefore, in view of the principle pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464, the proceeding drawn against applicant nos.2 to 8 are erroneous and are in sheer misuse of the process of the Court and the same cannot be allowed to go on. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be interfered at this stage.

The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants prima facie appears to have some substance. The matter requires consideration after receiving response from opposite parties.

Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.1. He prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 who may file counter affidavit within the same period.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List on expiry of the aforesaid period.

Till the next date of listing, entire proceeding of complaint case no.7313 of 2018 (Smt. Usha vs. Ajay Rathor and other) as well as summoning order dated 15.5.2019 passed by ACJM III Meerut, under Section 406 IPC, shall remain stayed as against applicant nos. 2 to 8 only.

So far as applicant no.1 Ajay Rathor is concerned, he is the husband of respondent no.2, he would have to face the trial because he cannot escape the liability of the allegations.

Accordingly, summoning order cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal in so far as applicant no.1 Ajay Rathor is concerned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the complaint case no.7313 of 2018 in pursuance of the summoning order dated 15.5.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. III, Meerut, under Section 406 IPC. Hence, prayer made for quashment of proceeding is refused against only applicant no.1 Ajay Rahor. He is required to participate in the proceeding before the court concerned and seek legal remedy as per law.

Order Date :- 5.11.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation