Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ruchi Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:54913
Court No. – 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 31015 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Ruchi Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Prajapati
Hon’ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramesh Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings, as well as, summoning order dated 30.07.2018 in Complaint Case No. 1128 of 2018 (Neeraj Kumar Singh vs. Smt. Ruchi Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sihanigate, District Ghazaibad.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is the wife and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are mother and father of applicant no. 1. The opposite no. 2 is the husband of applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 were married on 06.02.2007 and after marriage there was a dispute between the parties and as a result of the same a first information report was lodged by the applicant no. 3 on 11.07.2017 against opposite party no. 2 and his family members under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after lodging of the aforesaid first information report an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was preferred by opposite party no. 2 which is at page-15 of the paper-book. He submits that the aforesaid application was filed under Sections 420, 406, 147, 148, 392, 342, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 120B IPC. As per allegations in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is alleged that applicant no. 1 was married to opposite party no. 2 on 06.02.2007. After marriage applicant no. 1 was not ready to reside with the in-laws at the ancestral home and the husband-opposite party no. 2 was working in Gurgaon Haryana. It is also alleged that applicant no. 1 was harassing the parents of the opposite party no. 2 and thereafter the husband-opposite party no. 2 has taken the wife along with him to Gurgaon Haryana. There also the wife was subjecting the husband to cruelty, subsequently, in order to settle the dispute the husband started living in Ghaziabad near the parental home of the wife-applicant no. 1.
5. It is alleged that the wife has lodged the first information report against the opposite party no. 2 and thereafter in the mediation proceedings in the police station it was decided that the opposite party no. 2 can meet the child born out of marriage. It is submitted that on 30.10.2017 when the opposite party no. 2 went to the house of the applicants, then they have assaulted the opposite party no.2 and thereafter the present FIR has been lodged.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present criminal proceedings against the applicants are an abuse of process of law as the father of the wife had already lodged a first information report on 11.07.2017 and in counter blast the opposite party no.2-husband has lodged the present FIR. It is further submits that no offence under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC is made out against the applicants. He submits that there is no injury report nor the opposite party no. 2 in his statement has stated that he went to the doctor after the alleged assault for medical treatment. In order to give colour to the dispute the present criminal case has been lodged. It is further submitted that once the first information report was lodged against opposite party no. 2 there was no occasion for the opposite party no. 2 to have visited the house of the applicants. The entire story raised by the opposite party no. 2 is concocted. He submits that the dispute in the present case arises out of matrimonial dispute and to counter the allegations made by the father of the applicant no. 1 the present criminal proceedings have been lodged. He further submits that applicants have been summoned by order dated 30.07.2018 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
7. Sri Ramesh Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application u/s 482 filed by the applicants. It is submitted by counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that in pursuance to the compromise arrived at police station after lodging of the first information report dated 11.07.2017, the husband-opposite party no.2 went to the house of applicants to meet the child where the assault has been made by applicants.
8. On a pointed query being made to the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, as to how, offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out against applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 fairly submits that there are no allegations with regard to offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, however, he submits that there is allegation with regard to assault and therefore, the Magistrate concerned committed no error in summoning the applicants under Section 323 IPC.
9. In the present case, it is to be seen that applicant no. 1 is the wife and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are parents of applicant no. 1. The opposite party no. 2 is the husband. A perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is to be seen that marriage has taken place on 06.02.2017 and as per allegations of opposite party no.2 the wife was subjecting the parents of the husband to cruelty when she was residing with parents of opposite party no. 2 at the ancestral home thereafter in order to save the marriage the wife was taken to the Gurgaon Haryana where the husband-opposite party no.2 was working where also the matrimonial dispute could not be set at rest as a wife was not ready to cooperate. As per further allegations, it is alleged that ultimately the husband and wife started residing at Ghaziabad near the parental home of the wife.
10. It is also alleged that FIR dated 11.07.2017 was lodged under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, as a result of the same, it is alleged that the mediation proceedings were initiated at police station and on the basis of mediation proceedings the opposite party no. 2 visited the house of the applicants to meet the child where the alleged assault was made by the applicants.
11. It is further to be noted that in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as, of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., no ingredients of the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also not disputed the fact that no offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out against the applicants. Since the aforesaid fact is not disputed by the counsel for opposite party no. 2 and coupled with the fact that the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 and 506 IPC is not made out against the applicants, summoning order in respect of the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC could not have been issued against applicants. Insofar as allegations under Section 323 IPC is concerned there is allegations in the statement of the opposite party no.2 that applicants have assaulted the opposite party no.2 when he reached the house of the applicants to meet the child in pursuance to the mediation held at police station.
12. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to demonstrate from record the mediation proceedings and the compromise that was reached at the police station in pursuance to the FIR dated 11.07.2017, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has only shown the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., however, no documentary evidence with regard to compromise has been shown. Even in the counter affidavit no averments in this respect has been made. It is further to be seen that it has not been stated by the opposite party no. 2 in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that after being assaulted he went to any doctor for medical treatment.
13. The facts and circumstances of the case is indicative of the fact that the injury report is not available in respect of the alleged incident nor any doctor has been examined. The compromise alleged to have been entered into which prompted the opposite party no.2 to visit the house of the applicants is not demonstrated. The compromise is required to be in writing, however, neither any police personnel’s statement has been shown to suffice that any compromise was entered into. The vague and general allegations cannot form the foundation for any legal or criminal proceedings being initiated against the applicants.
14. Prima facie, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute which has spelled into the criminal jurisprudence without any foundation. The criminal proceedings against applicants is to wreck vengeance and is abuse of process of law.
15. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings, as well as, summoning order dated 30.07.2018 against the applicants is here by quashed. The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 1.4.2024
S.Prakash
