HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 37560 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt.Simmi And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. are present.
Heard on application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This Application has been given with the request to quash the summoning order dated 16.05.2019 and the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 560 of 2018 (Aman Vs. Smt. Simmi) under Section 147, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section452 and Section427 I.P.C., P.S.- Shamshabad, District Agra pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra.
The submission of the learned counsel is that applicant no. 1 is the wife of O.P. No. 2 and remaining applicants are relatives of the applicant no. 1. As such, this is a dispute between husband and wife. Further submission is that earlier, applicant no. 1 had also filed a complaint against O.P. No. 2 and his other six relatives including his parents, in which, opposite party and his relatives have been summoned for the offence under Section 498A, Section323, Section313, Section504, Section420, Section406 and Section506 I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act. The submission of the learned counsel is that the complaint filed by the husband is by way of counter-blast just to harass the wife and her relatives.
From the perusal of the impugned order of summoning, it appears that the complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2 against the applicants in the aforesaid sections alleging allegation that on 14.03.2018, at 07:00 a.m., in the morning all the accused persons came to his house and committed maar peet with them and damaged the property which was kept in the house. In support of the complaint, the complainant was examined and two eye-witnesses were also examined who supported the complaint version. Injury report was also filed. Perusing the evidence on record and analysing the statement of the complainant and witnesses, learned trial court found prima facie case for summoning the applicants for the aforesaid offences and therefore, by impugned orders, the applicants were summoned.
It appears that no revision was filed against the summoning order before any court. Revision is also an efficacious and alternative remedy in such cases and when that legal recourse was available to the applicants, they could have approached to the competent court challenging the order in revision, but, it appears that the applicants did not do so. Secondly, learned trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence on record concluding that a prima facie case has been made out. Moreover, the admitted case by the applicant is that both the sides are not in good terms even though applicant no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 are husband and wife and others are close relatives, there appears that they are regularly disputing for some or other reasons and in such situation, if, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case and good reason for summoning the applicants, the order does not require any intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. nor it comes in the purview of the abuse of process of the court. As such, I find no force in the application, the application is dismissed.
It is however, observed that in case, applicant nos. 1 to 8 put their appearance before the learned court below and file bail application, their bail application should be considered sympathetically, considering that there is a matrimonial kind of dispute between the parties for which possibility of settlement is always there.
The learned court below may also refer the matter to the mediation.
Order Date :- 19.10.2019