SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Durgesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?

Court No. – 28

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 1573 of 2009

Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Singh’Bhadauria’

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

Hon’ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition has been instituted by the petitioners assailing summoning order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 23, Rae Bareli in complaint case no. 143 of 2007 (Ram Lalan Vs. Durgesh Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, Section504, Section506 and Section509 I.P.C. and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Rae Bareli.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present complaint has been lodged by the complainant on the basis of false and fabricated facts of demand of dowry and allegations against petitioner Shreepal has been levelled falsely that he wanted to sexually exploit the victim, who is daughter of the complainant. Moreover, the victim has herself filed Suit for getting divorce from her husband-petitioner Durgesh Kumar, which indicates that victim was not interested to reside at her matrimonial home. Therefore, summoning order is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this petition by submitting that the victim was harassed by the petitioners for demand of dowry of amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Hero Honda Motor Cycle. She was turned out from her matrimonial home on 20.11.2006 at 2.00 p.m. It is also mentioned that petitioner Shreepal wanted to sexually exploit her daughter-in-law i.e. victim on 21.06.2005 at 11.00 a.m. Therefore, defence version of the petitioners cannot be considered at the primary stage, because learned trial Court has passed the summoning order on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.

On perusal of facts narrated in the F.I.R. and evidence adduced by the complainant and victim PW-1 and witness PW-2, it cannot be said that facts narrated in the complaint are false and fabricated.

On the basis of above discussion, petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 8.8.2019

Arvind

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

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