Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23424 of 2017 Applicant :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Surrendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.6665 of 2016 (Smt. Archana Devi Vs. Shani & Another), under Sections-494, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Mainpuri.
3. Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that four months prior to the incident, the applicant had disowned her son Sunny. Reliance has been placed on a notice published in the Newspaper "Dainik Jagran" on 12.06.2015.
4. Then, it has been submitted, even if the entire complaint allegations are read, it is seen that the allegations are against Sunny of having contracted a second marriage during the life time of his first wife namely, Archana Devi (opposite party no.2).
5. Perusal of the complaint reveals that though there is allegation made that the present applicant (who is the mother of the said Sunny) was responsible, for the occurrence i.e. the second marriage performed by Sunny, as to the fact allegation, the same are wholly bald and inherently improbable. The complainant has first alleged that the said Sunny had eloped with Ruby. He first executed a notary deed claiming marriage and thereafter obtained a registration of that marriage on 09.07.2015 and further he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ No.35606 of 2015, concealing the fact of first marriage with opposite party no.2. Such specific allegation having been made against Sunny alone, the further allegation made against the present applicant is preposterous or inherently improbable.
6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the entire proceeding against the applicant in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 S.Chaurasia