Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17362 of 2019 Applicant :- Vikas And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It is has been contended on behalf of the applicants that the summoning order dated 07.05.2018 is not based on any material on record and thus the same is not legally justified. The court below failed to take note of fact that mere bald averments cannot be counted against the applicants and cannot be construed as participation of the applicants in the very crime. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there is no specific material roping in the applicant nos.3 to 5, who happen to be sister-in-law, brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, who have been falsely implicated in this case just because they happen to be relative of applicant no.1- husband. Therefore, in view of the principle pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464, the proceeding drawn against applicant nos.3 to 5 are erroneous and are in sheer misuse of the process of the Court and the same cannot be allowed to go on. Therefore, the order impugned dated 07.05.2018 is liable to be quashed.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants prima facie appears to have some substance. The matter requires consideration after receiving response from opposite parties.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.1. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 who may file counter affidavit within the same period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of complaint case no.3246 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Mathura, shall remain stayed against applicant nos.3 to 5 only.
So far as applicant no.1 and 2, Vikas and Smt. Madhu Verma are concerned, they are the husband and mother-in-law of respondent no.2, they would have to face the trial because they cannot escape the liability of the allegations.
Accordingly, summoning order cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal in so far as applicant no.1 and 2, Vikas and Smt. Madhu Verma are concerned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned summoning order dated 07.05.2018 in complaint case no.3246 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura. Hence, prayer made for quashment of proceeding is refused for applicant nos.1 and 2.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Raj