Allahabad High Court
Smt Asha Jain And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 November, 2020
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15182 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt Asha Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madan Lal Rai Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt. Asha Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, with the prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 14, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2019, under Sections-397 Cr.P.C. along with order of Magistrate of Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 8th, Ghaziabad dated 06.03.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Complaint Case No. 1697 of 2018, whereby, the applicants Smt. Asha Jain and Anil Kumar Jain have been summoned for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a complaint was filed by Smt. Neha Jain against Shashwat Jain and others, wherein, she was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. Her witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, summoning order was passed on 16.01.2020, whereby Shashwat Jain was summoned for offences punishable under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. Rest of accused persons were not summoned.
Against this order, a Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2019, Smt. Neha Jain vs. Shashwat jain & Ors. was filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and it was decided by the Revisional Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 16.01.2020, wherein, the impugned summoning order was set aside with further remand of file to the Magistrate concerned and after hearing the impugned summoning order was passed, wherein, both the applicants Smt. Asha Jain and Anil Kumar Jain were summoned along with Shashwat Jain. The applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law having no concern with the affair of the complainant and just to create a pressure the impugned accusation was made hence, both of these orders were in abuse of process of law, hence, for the ends of justice this application under inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned counsel for other side is present and vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
From the very perusal of the impugned order of the Revisional Court, it is apparent, that reason has been given by the Revisional Court that there is specific mention of demand of Dowry of BMW Car and cruelty with regard to it by Father-in-Law, Mother-in-Law, husband and other brother and sisters of the husband and it was there in the statement, recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., in its enquiry made by the Magistrate but, the summoning was for husband Shashwat Jain only. No cogent reason was there for leaving Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law from summoning because there was specific accusation with statements on oath, with regard to it. The same is situation in statements recorded as above and on the basis of these evidence there was a prima-facie ground for proceeding against the present applicants Smt. Asha Jain and Anil Kumar Jain. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order is there against them.
This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to embark upon factual aspect because of the same is to be analyzed by the Trial Court. So far as, the impugned summoning order is concerned, there is prima-facie case for summoning as above. Accordingly, there is no abuse of process of law, hence this application merits dismissal. Dismissed as such.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, protection with regard to bail, to the applicants, Smt. Asha Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, is being granted in this Complaint Case No. 1697 of 2018, that in case they make surrender before the trial Court within 30 days from today and moves bail application in above criminal complaint case, the same shall be decided, in accordance with law aid down by this Court in case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. then for a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 17.11.2020 Deepak/