State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

: Akhilesh Singh Yadav, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Gopal Das Srivastava, Jayant Kumar, Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, Ratan Shankar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhavisya Sharma, G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Gopal Das Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Bhavisya Sharma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. The case of the applicants is that a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 being FIR No. 0278 dated 09.04.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar relatable commission of the offences on 27.03.2017 against the applicants who are married Nanad, Nandoi and Devar and non-applicants- husband and mother-in-law with an allegation that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, marriage stood solemnized with one Neeraj Shukla on 12.06.2011 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred and Rs. 1 lakh and other household items were given, however, the applicants herein were not happy with the gifts and offerings so made, as their expectations were much more and they acted as a gang and also assaulted the opposite party no. 2, however, despite several request in order to get the things pacify, nothing was done and thereafter a baby was born of the wedlock and on 27.03.2014, allegation is that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 was being attempted to 2 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 strangulated, however, she was saved from the clutches though good offices were resorted too in order to pacify the names but nothing happened in that regard.

4. Post recording of the statements, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicants whereas the mother-in-law was exonerated and since the husband of the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 had also died, thus, the applicants herein had approached this Court while filing the present application in which on 15.04.2019, the following orders were passed: "Heard Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the Married Nanand, Nandoi and applicant nos. 3 and 4 are the Devar of the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated as they have not committed any offence and no offences whatsoever were made out. Submission is that the applicants herein are having separate living and the applicant no. 1 is the married nanad and her marriage was solemnized with the applicant no. 2 in the year 2004 and she is living separately and Aadhar Card has also been annexed. Further submission is that the applicant nos. 3 and 4 are the devar and the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 against whom only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled. Learned counsel for 3 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 the applicants submits that whatever might be the offences, if any, could have been at best made against the husband and the mother-in-law and since the applicants are married nanad, nandoi and devar, thus, no offences can be said to be made out on the face of the allegations contained in the first information report which barring reference to an incident dated 27.03.2017 and on 16.01.2017, nothing is there on record even worth-consideration as there is no iota of evidence against the applicants.

6. Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer and Shri Bhavisya Sharma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that from the allegations so levelled in the first information report and the statements, it is more than apparent that offences are made out and the case is triable and as there are no material contradictions or variations in the statements in that regard. Further submission is that merely on the basis of the aadhar card, it cannot be presumed that the applicants are having separate living as what would be understandable would be the fact that on the date when the alleged offences have been stated to have been committed whether there was joint living or separate living in that regard. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants seek to prefer a discharge application, seeking discharge before the court below taking all legal and factual grounds which are available and permissible under law and a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in correct perspective.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

8. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant who are married nanad, nandoi and devar and non-applicants husband and mother-in-law, a chargesheet came to be submitted against the applicants herein, the bone of contention between the parties is to the effect that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are having separate living and reliance has been placed upon the Aadhar card and other documents whereas the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

9. Moreover looking overall facts situation as well as the nature of allegations so sought to be levelled though on one hand, the allegation is that there are general and omnibus allegations and on the other hand, the stand is that they are specific, thus, in absence of convincing material this 4 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 Court is not required to delve into factual issues while recording any defininte finding. However, it is for the applicants to prefer a discharge application seeking discharge.

10. Insofar as the argument so raised with regard to disowning the applicant nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the same is not required to go at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 14.11.2025 to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition strictly in accordance with law.

12. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action is being taken against the applicants in pursuance of the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

13. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicants as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. October 6, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Akhilesh Singh Yadav, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Gopal Das Srivastava, Jayant Kumar, Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, Ratan Shankar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhavisya Sharma, G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Gopal Das Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Bhavisya Sharma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. The case of the applicants is that a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 being FIR No. 0278 dated 09.04.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar relatable commission of the offences on 27.03.2017 against the applicants who are married Nanad, Nandoi and Devar and non-applicants- husband and mother-in-law with an allegation that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, marriage stood solemnized with one Neeraj Shukla on 12.06.2011 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred and Rs. 1 lakh and other household items were given, however, the applicants herein were not happy with the gifts and offerings so made, as their expectations were much more and they acted as a gang and also assaulted the opposite party no. 2, however, despite several request in order to get the things pacify, nothing was done and thereafter a baby was born of the wedlock and on 27.03.2014, allegation is that the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 was being attempted to 2 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 strangulated, however, she was saved from the clutches though good offices were resorted too in order to pacify the names but nothing happened in that regard.

4. Post recording of the statements, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicants whereas the mother-in-law was exonerated and since the husband of the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 had also died, thus, the applicants herein had approached this Court while filing the present application in which on 15.04.2019, the following orders were passed: "Heard Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the Married Nanand, Nandoi and applicant nos. 3 and 4 are the Devar of the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated as they have not committed any offence and no offences whatsoever were made out. Submission is that the applicants herein are having separate living and the applicant no. 1 is the married nanad and her marriage was solemnized with the applicant no. 2 in the year 2004 and she is living separately and Aadhar Card has also been annexed. Further submission is that the applicant nos. 3 and 4 are the devar and the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 against whom only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled. Learned counsel for 3 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 the applicants submits that whatever might be the offences, if any, could have been at best made against the husband and the mother-in-law and since the applicants are married nanad, nandoi and devar, thus, no offences can be said to be made out on the face of the allegations contained in the first information report which barring reference to an incident dated 27.03.2017 and on 16.01.2017, nothing is there on record even worth-consideration as there is no iota of evidence against the applicants.

6. Shri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer and Shri Bhavisya Sharma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that from the allegations so levelled in the first information report and the statements, it is more than apparent that offences are made out and the case is triable and as there are no material contradictions or variations in the statements in that regard. Further submission is that merely on the basis of the aadhar card, it cannot be presumed that the applicants are having separate living as what would be understandable would be the fact that on the date when the alleged offences have been stated to have been committed whether there was joint living or separate living in that regard. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants seek to prefer a discharge application, seeking discharge before the court below taking all legal and factual grounds which are available and permissible under law and a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in correct perspective.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

8. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant who are married nanad, nandoi and devar and non-applicants husband and mother-in-law, a chargesheet came to be submitted against the applicants herein, the bone of contention between the parties is to the effect that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are having separate living and reliance has been placed upon the Aadhar card and other documents whereas the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

9. Moreover looking overall facts situation as well as the nature of allegations so sought to be levelled though on one hand, the allegation is that there are general and omnibus allegations and on the other hand, the stand is that they are specific, thus, in absence of convincing material this 4 A482 No. 14588 of 2019 Court is not required to delve into factual issues while recording any defininte finding. However, it is for the applicants to prefer a discharge application seeking discharge.

10. Insofar as the argument so raised with regard to disowning the applicant nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the same is not required to go at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 14.11.2025 to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition strictly in accordance with law.

12. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action is being taken against the applicants in pursuance of the impugned Charge sheet dated 17.12.2017 as well as consequential orders passed by learned Magistrate in Case No. 26832 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

13. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicants as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. October 6, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad