High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143922 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29403 of 2024 Applicant :- Satish Kumar Gond And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4- 2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 7. I have considered above submissions in the light of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) and find merit that statement of complainant as referred above was not only general and omnibus but has not even referred any specific allegation against any of applicants, therefore, I am of considered opinion that facts of present case squarely fall within contours of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) as well as impugned order has not assigned requisite reasons as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. (see Lalankumar Singh vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383). 8. In view of above, it is evident that impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court-4/A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 15650/2024 (Smt. Sneha Devi vs. Satish Kumar Gond and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gorakhpur in its present form does not survive, hence, it is set aside. 9. However, this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party-2, therefore, this application is disposed of by remitting the matter back to concerned trial Court to pass a fresh order, after hearing complainant only. Order Date :- 4.9.2024 N. Sinha
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA. 2. Impugned order was passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby applicants (7 in numbers) have been summoned to face trial U/s 498-A, 323 IPC and for reference, same is quoted below -: “ददनननक -11-07-2023 दनयत हह। पररवनददनल कद सतलश गगड हमम तलन- दवदनन अधधवकन कद तकक कक पपजन (जदठ, जदठननल) पलटकर भगन कक मसझद घर सद धलए परदशनन करनद लगद। 7 ददनननक 28-04-2021 दनयत दतधर पर ससनन एवन आददश हदतस पतनवलल कन अवलककन दकयन। दन०प०सन० मम करन दकयन गयन हह कक सतलश सद हहई रल। शनदल कक रनजकस मनर, ससशललन(सनस), पनकज, अनलतन, चनर लनख रपयद तरन मनह सद मम अपनद मनयकद मम रह रहल ददए रद इसधलए मह मनयकद आ दनकनलन रन। हम कई बनर दकए परनतस यद लकग हमम वनपस बसलननद सद हल मनन कर ददए पतनवलल आददशनरर पपवर पररवनददनल दनरन अपनद बयनन धनरन-200 दक मदरल शनदल एक महलनद बनद सद हल पवन, गनडल कद ह। कयकदक सससरनल वनलद मनर- हह गई। ददनननक 14-08-2023 फकन सद सनपकर रद। मसझद और कस छ नहह कहनन हह। पररवनददनल नद अनतगरत धनरन-202 ससनलतन ददवल तरन पल०डबलप० 2 करनयन हह। इसकद अदतररक छनयन पदत आधनर कनडर, पत वररष पसधलस अधलकक, कक छनयन पदतयनन पसतसत कक गयल हम। पररवनददनल दनरन अपनद बयनन अनतगरत धनरन-200 दन०प०सन० मम पररवनद-पत मम वदररत घटनन कन समररन दकयन गयन हह। घटनन कन समररन पररवनददनल व पल०डबलप० 2 कक तरफ सद पसतसत सनकल पल०डबलप०-1 नद भल अपनद बयनन अनतगरत धनरन-202 दकयन हह। पररवनददनल व उसकक बयनन कद आधनर पर अदभयसकगर सतलश तरफ सद पसतसत सनकलगर कद दन०प०सन० मम पल०डबलप० 1 कद रप मम कद रप मम सतयपकनश गगड कक परलदकत छनयन पदत पनररनन- छनयन पदत रधजसटटल रसलद सद समबननधत पलदख द०प०सन० मम ससशललन ददवल, रनजकस मनर गगड, पवन एवन शलमतल पपजन ददवल कद कस मनर गगड, शलमतल अनलतन ददवल, दवरद धनरन- 498A, 323 भन०दन०सन० कद तहत परम दषयन मनमलन बनतन हह। अतएव उपरकक अदभयसकगर तलब दकयद जननद यकगय हह। अनय धनरनओन मम अदभयसकगर कक तलब दकयद जननद कन परम दषयन आधनर पयनरप नहह हह। पनकज गगड, ” 3. Applicant no.1 is husband of complainant. 4. Learned counsel refers statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is also quoted below -: “धनरन -200 दन०प०सन० सनदहन पसतल सतय पकनश गगड पतनल सतलश गगड उम 23 वरर ननम- गगहरल पतन धमरशनलन बनजनर गकरखपसर। वयवसनय दनरन सशपर बयनन दकयन गयन दक- सतलश गगड हमम 3-4 28.04.2021 रनजकस मनर, जदठननल) करनद लगद। ल० 7 सससरनल वनलद मनरपलट कर भगन ददनननक 14.08.2023 सद समपकर ”रद। ससनलतन (सनस), पनकज, अनलतन, पवन, लनख रपयद तरन गनडल कद कक सतलश सद हहयल रल। शनदल कद एक महलनद बनद सद हल अनसजन (जदठ, धलए परदशनन न। कयकदक ददयद रद इसधलए मम मनयकद आ गयल। दनकनलन रन। हम कई बनर फकन दकयद परनतस यद लकग हमम वनपस बसलननद सद हल मनन कर ददयद मनह सद मम अपनद मनयकद मम कक मसझद घर सद रह रहल हह 5. Learned counsel by referring above statement submits that complainant has made omnibus and bald allegations against applicant-1 i.e. her husband and his family members as well as trial Court has not considered that there was no specific allegation against any of the applicants. Trial Court has not even referred statements in brief recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. In support of above submissions, learned counsel has placed a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and refers following paragraphs -: “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of