SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manorama Rani And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 37076 of 2016

Applicant :- Manorama Rani And 3 Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

Present application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1220 of 2012 (Arun Kumar Vs. Praveen and others), under Sections 323, Section504, Section506, Section379 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Hapur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that allegations levelled in the complaint are false. One petition under Guardian and SectionWards Act has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant no. 1 for custody of child. Divorce petition filed on behalf of applicant no. 1 was also pending. Present complaint was filed in counter-blast only to harass the applicants. All the jewelleries and ornaments belonging to the applicant no. 1 have been kept by opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that despite service of notice, opposite party no. 2 did not turn up nor files counter affidavit to controvert the facts mentioned in the affidavit annexed with the application. It is further submitted that applicants’ case is squarely covered with the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the entire record including the contents of the complaint as well as statement recorded on the complaint and also the summoning order dated 30.11.2012, it is evident that at the time of offence said to have been committed in the present matter, applicant no. 1 was serving as teacher in Navoday Vidyalaya, Bajarang Garh, District Guna at Madhya Pradesh. Earlier dispute arose between the parties regarding custody of child. No consensus was arrived at between the parties regarding the custody of child. Divorce petition was also pending between the parties at the time of filing of complaint. Thus, after scrutinizing the entire facts and evidence, Court is of the opinion that it cannot be ruled out that present complaint was filed in counter-blast by the opposite party no. 2 to put pressure. Applicant no. 1 is wife of opposite party no. 2. Application having substance is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is allowed.

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1220 of 2012 (Arun Kumar Vs. Praveen and others), under Sections 323, Section504, Section506, Section379 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Hapur, against the applicants are liable quashed.

Order Date :- 2.8.2019

Sanjeet

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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