Allahabad High Court
Smt. Soniya Devi vs State Of U.P And 6 Others on 9 December, 2022
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31290 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Soniya Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 22.8.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 369 of 2019 (Soniya Devi Vs. State and others) arising out of Case No. 548 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 427, 379, 506 IPC and order dated 24.9.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II Varanasi in Case No. 1574 of 2018 (State Vs. Khattu Sonkar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Maduwadeeh, District Varanasi.
It is submitted that in this case, one case was instituted on police report and other on the basis of complaint relating to different incidents occurring on different times. In police case, charge sheet was submitted by the police and in complaint case, summoning was made, thereafter an application u/s 210 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of accused persons on which order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Varanasi on 24.9.2019 by which he allowed the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. against which criminal revision was filed before the learned Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 22.8.2022 without considering the facts of both the cases, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by learned courts below and to direct the learned court concerned to proceed in both the cases separately as state case as well as complaint case.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case, the incident in both the cases is similar which took place with the informant who is daughter-in-law of the complainant regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged by daughter-in-law and separate complaint was filed by the mother-in-law. An application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3112 of 2019 was filed on behalf of accused persons in which this Court vide order dated 25.1.2019 directed the applicant to file an application u/s 210 Cr.P.C to deal with the situation as a result application was filed and in compliance of order passed by this court, impugned orders were passed on the basis of material on record. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the orders in question. Hence this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that F.I.R. was lodged by the daughter-in-law, Soni as Crime No. 411 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against opposite party with allegation that on 22.7.2017 at 9 a.m. she went to see the bricks placed in front of her house. At this the accused persons started abusing her when objected, she was beaten by them. In the meantime, devar, Sarthi and mother-in-law, Soniya intervened at which accused persons also beat them and caused injuries as a result her mother-in-law, Soniya Devi went to hospital Kabirchaura in relation to treatment. F.I.R. was lodged at 9.40 a.m. on the same day. In the complaint filed by mother-in-law, Soniya Devi, incident was mentioned to have taken place on the same day at 9 o'clock with similar allegation. Later on the time on the complaint was amended and it was made as 1 p.m. It is to note that an information regarding this incident was sent to the S.S.P. by the complainant in which time of occurrence was mentioned as 9 a.m. and from the perusal of F.I.R. it becomes clear that when the incident took place at about 9 a.m. and injuries were caused to the complainant/mother-in-law of the informant, she went to Kabirchaura in relation to treatment. In this way the incident as alleged in the complaint to have taken place at 1 p.m. cannot be said to have taken place as the complainant being in hospital after sustaining injuries in the incident which happened at 9 a.m. regarding which an application was sent to the S.S.P. mentioning the time of occurrence as 9 a.m. When an application was filed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, he also considered all these facts and passed the order while clubbing both the cases in accordance with the procedure as given under Section 210 Cr.P.C. While passing the order in criminal revision learned revisional court has also considered all these facts and affirmed the order passed by learned Magistrate. In view of the present scenario of facts, the order passed by learned Magistrate and learned revisional court cannot be said to be beyond the facts on record and against law but this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022 A. Singh