SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 41

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 33460 of 2019

Applicant :- Ajay

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1143 of 2017 (Dushyant Vs. Ajay) pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 3, Bulandshahar along with orders dated 7.12.2017 and 20.8.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 3, Bulandshahar and Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bulandshahar.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is cousin of wife of O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 has committed marpit with his wife Poonam due to which she sustained injuries and she was medically examined on 17.7.2017. The wife of O.P. No. 2 namely Smt. Poonam had also lodged an FIR under Sectionsection 498A, Section323, Section504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act on 6.1.2018 and prior to this one complaint was also filed by Poonam against O.P. No. 2 and his family members. Only to make pressure upon the applicant and his family members the O.P. No. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint. In fact Smt. Poonam is cousin sister of applicant. No such incident has taken place. The applicant has not taken away Poonam. False story has been concocted by O.P. No. 2. No offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment. It has further been submitted that applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2019 against summoning order dated 7.12.2017 which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 20.8.2019. The judgment and order of lower revisional court is also not in accodance with law.

On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that the learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on reocrd and finding a prima facie case has summoning the applicant to face trial under Sectionsection 498 IPC. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the impugned summoning order which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 20.8.2019. In complaint it has been mentioned that applicant took away the wife of O.P. No. 2 namely Smt. Poonam with him and Poonam was seen by the witnesses going on motor-cycle with applicant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order and judgment of the courts below.

A perusal of the record shows that O.P. No. 2 in his complaint has mentioned that on 15.7.2017 his wife Poonam after taking ornaments and clothes had gone with applicant along with her minor daughter aged about 2 years. It has further been mentioned that father of O.P. No. 2 and one Charan had seen the applicant taking Poonam on motorcycle. The O.P. No. 2 has supported the complaint version in his statement under Sectionsection 200 Cr.P.C. and he has examined Umesh Kumar and Om Prakash who have also supported the complaint version in their statements recorded under Sectionsection 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial under Sectionsection 498 IPC. Against the summoning order the applicant has preferred a criminal revision which was dismissed by lower revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 20.8.2019. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order as well as judgment and order of lower revisional court. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as orders dated 7.12.2017 and 20.8.2019 passed by courts below, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused and the application U/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.9.2019

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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