Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29834 of 2019 Applicant :- Deepak Giri @ Sonu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Even after revised list, none is present for opposite party no. 2.
As per office report, service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 07.06.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 430 of 2016 (Meera Giri Vs. Deepak and others), under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pakadi, District Ballia, pending in the court of ACJM-Ist, Ballia.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that opposite party no. 2 has filed this false case regarding family dispute over a property. No such occurrence ever occurred. Date of occurrence has been said to be 15.12.2016 in application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, certified copy of which is on record at page no. 16 as well as in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., whereas the date of occurrence has been said to be of 22.12.2016 in statement of Hardev Chauhan and Ram Chandra Chauhan recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Two dates of occurrence was there. One is of 15.12.2016 and second is of 22.12.2016, but Magistrate did not take this in its notice and passed impugned order, which was utter misuse of process of law. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer.
From the very perusal of complaint, which was filed as an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant Meera Giri before ACJM-II, Ballia, it is apparent that date of occurrence has been said to be of 15.12.2016 at 2 PM. This was treated as complaint, wherein complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., in which occurrence has been said to be of 15.12.2016 at 2 P.M., whereas her two witnesses Hardev Chauhan and Ram Chandra Chauhan in their statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have said the occurrence to be of 22.12.2016 at 2 PM. Meaning thereby, date of occurrence could not be established. The entire accusation goes away. Moreso, affidavit filed in support of this proceeding is un- controverted. Hence, the impugned order is apparently erroneous and under misuse of process of court.
Hence, this application is allowed. The summoning order dated 07.06.2019 as well as entire proceeding of above mentioned complaint case is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 NS