Allahabad High Court
Smt. Seema And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 6 May, 2022
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5453 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Seema And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Adnan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjeev Shukla Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Unnao in Case No.546 of 2013 (Sushil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others).
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with the brother of the applicants, namely, Sushil Kumar on 11.05.2011 and they were enjoying their matrimonial life and due to some matrimonial dispute in between Sushil Kumar (brother of the applicants) and respondent No.2 (Smt. Anita), she filed complaint before the court below, which was treated as complaint case, and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order was passed on 07.09.2013 against husband-Sushil Kumar (brother of the applicants) as well as parents of the applicants namely, Bhagwandeen and Smt. Rajjo. He further submitted that husband of the respondent No.2 and her parents in-law appeared before the court below in compliance of the summoning order and case was proceeded, statement under Sections 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded, thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and prayed for summoning of applicants for trial. On the aforesaid application filed by respondent No.2, applicants were summoned by the court below, vide order dated 25.06.2016 along with other co-accused person. He further submitted that in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. only general allegations have been levelled against the accused persons including the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that statement of Jagdish Prasad was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in which, general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Statement of mother of respondent No.2, namely, Chedana was also recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in which, she stated that in-laws of the respondent No.2 were demanding Rs.15 lakh and about three and half years ago, all the accused persons came to her house and asked dowry. She also stated that Neelam was the mediator of the marriage of respondent No.2 as she never made any complaint about demand of dowry by her husband and her in-laws including the applicants. Statement of Smt. Anita (respondent No.2) was also recorded, under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in which, she stated that dowry amounting to Rs.30 lakhs was given by her parents to Sushil Kumar (husband). All the accused persons including the applicants were making the demand of dowry, when it was not fulfilled, then she was being victimized and she was also beaten by them as she was carrying pregnancy of two months. On 28.04.2013, all the accused persons along with applicants visited her house and asked Rs.15 lakh and when she denied, then they forcibly entered into her house and started skirmish. In this regard, complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. Again on 20.09.2013 at about 5:00 p.m., accused persons including the applicants came to the house of respondent No.2 and warned for withdrawal of the case and also abused and assaulted her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as it is undisputed that on the date of incident, husband of respondent No.2 was in abroad and impugned proceedings was quashed in relation to Sushil Kumar (husband of respondent No.2) in Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3138 of 2014, vide order dated 24.07.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and in the case of Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 and submitted that vague allegations have been levelled against the applicants in the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C.. He further submitted that general allegations have been levelled as the respondent No.2, in her statement, admitted that her husband asked the demand of dowry on phone, when she was in bahrain. All these allegations are general in nature and it is evident from the statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and now-a-days a trend has developed that after matrimonial dispute in between the husband and wife, all the family members and in-laws are being dragged, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer of applicants and submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that initially summoning order was passed against the husband of the respondent No.2 and her parents in-law, and thereafter, on the application of respondent No.2 moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., applicants were summoned. He further submitted that decisions relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another (supra) are not applicable in the present case, but he does not dispute the fact that proceeding in question is already quashed by this Court in relation to Sushil Kumar (husband of respondent No.2). Hence, the application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of complaint case, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order dated 07.09.2013 by which the husband of the respondent No.2 and her in-laws were summoned and statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., it is evident that statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, general allegations have been levelled against the applicants and respondent No.2 , in her statement, has categorically stated that demand of dowry was asked by her in-laws and no specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants and general and vague averments have been made, as in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another (supra), this controversy was considered and observed in the matrimonial offences. In the present case, statement recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as well as complaint reveals that general allegations have been levelled against all the family members as well as in-laws by the respondent No.2. As it is undisputed that impugned proceedings was quashed in relation to Sushil Kumar (husband of respondent No.2) in Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3138 of 2014, vide order dated 24.07.2014.
Hence, considering the observations made herein above and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
The present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) stands allowed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022 Amit/-