SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shikha Trivedi vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 24 April, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra appearing for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to connect the Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.895 of 2019 (Saurabh Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others) with the present application and decide both the cases together and a fruther proceeding has been made to stay the proceedings of the Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow (State vs. Shikha and Others) pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.28, Lucknow till the disposal of the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the opposite party No.2 on 09.12.2012 and that after some time of the marriage, opposite party No.2 and his family members started making allegations on the character of the applicant. Thereafter, the opposite party No.3 lodged the F.I.R. as Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Section 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow on 30.05.2016 at 19:30 hours against the applicant and her father with the allegation that the applicant was having illicit relations with one Raj Bahadur and she was repeatedly advised not to do so for the sake of reputation of the family but she ignored the same and started living in a separate rented accomodation, which was also far from her parental house. On 11/12.02.2016, it is further alleged therein that she came to the house of the private opposite parties and started quarrel and had forcibly taken away some ornaments of opposite party No.3. On 25.05.2017 at about 07:30 p.m., she again came to the house and started scuffling and abusing and also forcibly taken cash from almirah amounting to Rs.17,000/- and some ornaments amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- on the same day, she again came back at 09:30 p.m. and made quarrel with them and also called her father.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant and her father, as the opposite party No.2 was having an illicit affair with some lady. He further submitted that on the written complaint of the applicant, F.I.R. as Case Crime No.460 of 2016, under Sections 307, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow was lodged on 30.05.2016 at 22:30 hours with the allegation that after marriage, her brother-in-law used to molest her and when she narrated the mis-behaviour of her brother-in-law to her husband and mother-in-law they scolded the applicant and gave warning not to tell anyone. Further allegation made therein is that on 21.11.2013, the applicant was beaten by the private opposite parties. He further submitted that the opposite party No.2 and other family members compelled the applicant to leave her matrimonial house and she stayed in her matrimonial house only for 7 months

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on 25.05.2016, the applicant was called by the opposite party No.2 and he told to the applicant that she will not be allowed to stay in his house, until she stops raising objection against her brother-in-law, but when she refused to do so, the opposite party Nos. 2 3 started pressing her neck and had also given beatings to her with lathi, danda, kicks and fists, due to which applicant made a call to the police control room on 100.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on the next day i.e. on 26.05.2016, the applicant on her own went to Balrampur Hospital, where she was medically examined and thereafter, the afoersaid F.I.R. was lodged.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to consider the evidence and submitted the charge sheet in Case Crime No.459 of 2019 (supra) against the applicant and her father under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C. on which cognizance was taken by the court below on 13.10.2017 and issued summoning order. Thereafter applicant approached this Court by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No.7389 of 2018, challenging the summoning order dated 13.10.2017 as also order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.50315 of 2017 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.28, Lucknow as well as charge sheet of Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow. The aforesaid application was disposed of by this Court on 20.11.2018 with the direction that, in case, the applicant appeared before the court below within 30 days from the date of the order and apply for bail, then their bail application should be considered and decided expeditiously. In pursuance to the said order, the applicants appeared before the court below and they were enlarged on bail by the trial court.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the meantime, the private opposite parties filed Case u/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.895 of 2019 (Saurabh Shukla and others vs. State of U.P. Another) challenging the charge sheet filed in the F.I.R. registered by the applicant bearing Case Crime No.460 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354A I.PC., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow as also summoning order dated 05.02.2019, in which, the interim order was granted by this Court. It is, thus, submitted that the present application may also be decided with the Criminal Misc. Case (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.895 of 2019 (Saurabh Shukla and others vs. State of U.P. Another) and till the disposal of the aforesaid case, the proceeding of Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow (State vs. Shikha and others) pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.28, Lucknow may be stayed.

9. Learned A.G.A. as well as the opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that summoning order dated 13.10.2017 order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.50315 of 2017 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.28, Lucknow as also charge sheet of Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow were earlier challenged by the applicant in Case Crime No.7389 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was also disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2018 and the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived, as the proceeding cannot be stayed till the decision of any other petition. They further submitted that in the impugned proceedings, the trial is going on but the same has not been challenged, therefore, also application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

10. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and private opposite parties, it is evident that earlier, the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Case (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.7389 of 2018 (Shikha Trivedi Another vs. State of U.P. Another), in which summoning order dated 13.10.2017 13.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.50315 of 2017 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.28, Lucknow and charge sheet of Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow was challenged and this Court while declining to interfere in the merit, passed following order on 20.11.2018 :

“Vakalatnama filed by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A.

I do not find any merit in this application warranting interference by this Court.

At this stage the learned counsel for the applicants made a prayer that the bail application of the applicants in Case Crime No. 459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., Police Station Madiyava, District Lucknow may be ordered to be considered expeditiously, if possible on the same day by the Court below.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Courts below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably on same day, in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges’ decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, interim order shall stand vacated automatically.”

11. Admittedly, in the present application, the prayer has been made to stay the further proceeding of Case Crime No.459 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow (State Vs. Shikha Others) till the pendency of Criminal Misc. Case No.895 of 2019 (supra). In Criminal Misc. Case No.895 of 2019, the proceeding of Case Crime No.460 of 2016 (supra) along with the charge sheet filed therein and other proceeding are under challenge. It is further evident that charge sheet of Case Crime No.459 of 2016 (supra) was earlier challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Case No.7389 of 2018 (Shikha Trivedi Another vs. State of U.P. Another) but this Court had declined to interfere in the charge sheet, disposed of the said application vide order dated 20.11.2018 giving liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below and apply for bail. As in Criminal Misc. Case No.895 of 2019, separate criminal proceeding is under challenge and in the present application, a direction for stay has been prayed in relation to the separate proceedings, therefore, this prayer cannot be granted.

12. On the basis of aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is found that the prayer in the present application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

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