Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31033 of 2019 Applicant :- Satendra Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The present 482 application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.2.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2019 whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed affirming the order dated 14.1.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case No. 430 of 2013 (State Vs. Satendra & Ors) under Sections-498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Ghanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar whereby the Misc. Application filed by the applicant was rejected.
It reflects from the record that O.P. No.2 was filed a complaint registered as Complaint Case No. 3515 of 2008 under Sections- 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against the applicant. In the complaint, the name of the complainant was mentioned as Neelam w/o Satendra Chaudhary d/o Lal Chandra but when she came for recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the aforesaid application was moved on the ground that from the document annexed with complaint i.e. Adhar Card being No. 857640415014, the name of the father of complainant was mentioned as Shivmurat and therefore, she is not the same lady who is wife of applicant. The name of the wife is Neelam d/o Lal Chandra not a daughter of Shivmurat. The objection filed by complainant to the said application on the ground that she is daughter of Lal Chandra but in the Adhar Card his father name has wrongly been mentioned as Shivmurat instead of Lal Chandra, for that purpose she moved an application for correction of her father's name which was corrected. Later on, copy of the corrected Adhar Card had already been filed by the complainant. The trial court rejected the application of the applicant vide order 14.1.2019 on the ground that the complainant is the wife of the applicant and her father name had already been corrected in the Adhar Card and there is no occasion to deny her recording the statement under Section 200 Cr. P.c. Against that order, Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2019 was filed by the applicant which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.2.2019.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that his wife of Neelam d/o Lal Chandra but her father name is Shivmurat and therefore her statement under Section 200 Cr.P. C. cannot be recorded.
In the opinion of this Court, the contention raised by counsel for the applicant is totally frivolous and the Adhar Card filed in support of the complaint, her father name had already been corrected as Neelam d/o Lal Chandra as both the courts below recorded a specific findings in this regard to the effected that the complainant is the wife of applicant.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and the application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Akbar