HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 10347 of 2008
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 21.05.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case No. 850 of 2008 (State Vs. Manoj and others) under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Hathras as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case.
3. Present application came up for admission on 29.04.2008. This Court passed an interim order dated 29.09.2008 whereby matter was referred to Medication and Conciliation Centre High Court Allahabad and further interim protection was granted to applicants. As a consequence of interim order dated 29.04.2008, proceedings of above mentioned case have remain stayed for the last more than 11 years. Applicants duly complied with the conditions mentioned in order dated 29.04.2008. Accordingly, notices were issued to the parties by Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad. Unfortunately, parties could not arrived at an agreement. As a result thereof, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad submitted a report dated 09.09.2008 stating therein that parties are not willing for mediation. Consequently, the matter has come up again before this Court
4. It transpires from record that marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with daughter of opposite party no.2. From the aforesaid wedlock, a girl child was born. Unfortunately, relationship between applicant no.2 and his wife i.e. daughter of opposite party no.2 became strained on account marital discord. On account of harassment caused by applicant no.1 to the daughter of opposite party no.2, an F.I.R. dated 18.09.2004 was lodged by opposite party no.2, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 429 of 2004 under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali Hathras, District-Hathras. Police upon investigation of the aforesaid case crime number submitted a charge-sheet dated 29.10.2004 against one of accused Manoj Kumar. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras vide cognizance taking order dated 21.05.2005. Subsequently Police submitted supplementary charge sheet dated 14.10.2004 against two of the accused namely Hazari Lal and Smt. Sushila Devi. As a consequence of above, a Criminal Case 850 of 2008 (State Vs. Manoj and others) under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Hathras came to be registered. Vide order dated 21.05.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, applicants have been summoned. Aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order dated 21.05.2005, applicants have now approached this Court means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicants submits that applicant no.1 had instituted a Matrimonial Petition No. 414 of 2003 (Monoj Sharma Vs. Smt. Suman Sharma) for divorce, which was decreed ex-parte vide judgement and order dated 04.09.2004.
6. I have perused the judgement and order dated 04.09.2004 which is an ex-parte judgement. Though the judgement and order dated 04.09.2004 is exparte but it does not record any finding on the basis of which the aforesaid divorce petition has been decreed ex-parte.
7. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that only after the suit for divorce filed by applicant no.1 was decreed by court below vide judgement and order dated 04.09.2004 that F.I.R. dated 18.09.2004 was lodged. Nothing has been brought on record as to what has happened subsequent to the judgement and order dated 04.09.2004. It is will settled that charge-sheet can be challenged only on limited grounds namely the Court has no jurisdiction or otherwise the proceedings are not maintainable. None of the aforesaid grounds is attracted in the present case.
8. In view of above. present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fails and is accordingly dismissed.
9. Interim order dated 29.04.2008 stands vacated.
10. However, in case the applicants appear before the Court below and file bail application within a period of one month from today, their bail application shall be considered by Court below in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
Order Date :- 7.1.2020