Radha Sharma v. Nidhi Sharma alias Bittu and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49074 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17920 of 2023 Applicant :- Nidhi Sharma Alias Bittu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Pranjal,Parmendar Singh,Rajendra Kushwaha,Rammani Giri Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri B.B. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rohit Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Parmendar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA-II for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed to quash the complaint dated 09.02.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 391 of 2022 (Radha Sharma Vs. Nidhi Sharma alias Bittu and others), under Sections 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj including the summoning order dated 20.02.2023. 3. The fact giving rise to the present case is that the applicant no.1 is daughter-in- law of the opposite party no.2. The husband of applicant no.1, namely, Vikas Sharma had died in the year March 2021. The dispute arose between the mother-in- law (Radha Sharma) and the daughter-in-law (Nidhi Sharma alias Bittu). Thereafter the complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2/ mother-in-law against the applicants with the allegation that the applicants came to her house and beaten her and thereafter forcibly taken away the money kept in the house. 4. The complainant and her husband, namely, Shyam Sundar Sharma has recorded their statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Thereafter, the court below summoned the applicants under Section 323 and 506 IPC by summoning order dated 20.02.2023, which is under challenged in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that from the bare glance of the statements of opposite party no.2 and her husband, it is clear that there is no specific allegation of beating on the part of the applicants as well as giving life threatening, therefore, no offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC is made out. It is further submitted that there is no injury report on record to show that opposite party no.2 was beaten by the applicants. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that though the husband of opposite party no.2 did not make any allegation of beating and threatening for life, but opposite party no.2 in her statement made specific allegation that the present applicants had beaten her and taken away her money from the house. 7. Learned AGA has also adopted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 8. After hearing submission of the parties, it appears that after the death of husband of applicant no.1, who is also a son of opposite party no.2, there was a minor dispute between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 with regard to the money and property. 9. From the perusal of the statement of opposite party no.2, it is clear that there is no allegation of threatening for life on the part of the applicants and simply the allegation is that the applicants along with their family members came to her place and beaten her and thereafter taken away the money lying in the house, but there is no injury report to support the such allegation of beating. 10. Similarly, from the perusal of the statement of husband of opposite party no.2, it is clear that there is no allegation of beating and threatening for life against the applicants. The only allegation is of entering into the house and demanding money and thereafter general allegation of abusing and allegation of threatening by applicant no.1 to falsely implicate the relatives of opposite party no.2. 11. For making out the case under Section 506 IPC, there must be a real threatening as criminal intimidation to a person, property or a reputation, which has been defined under Section 503 IPC, Section 506 IPC is quoted herein below:- "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 12. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is no specific allegation of criminal intimidation by the applicants against the opposite party no.2. In the statement of opposite party no.2 she stated that threatening was given to falsely implicate her husband while her husband Shyam Sundar Sharma in his statement has stated that the applicant no.1 has threatened to falsely implicate his daughter and son-in-law. 13. So far as Section 323 IPC is concerned to attract the ingredient of Section 323 IPC, it is necessary that hurt must be caused by the accused. Section 323 IPC is quoted herein below:- "Section 323:-Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 14. From the perusal of Section 323 IPC, it is clear that to attract the liability under Section 323 IPC, there must be specific allegation of causing hurt but in the present case it is clear that husband of opposite party no.2, who was also present at the place of incident did not make any allegation of causing hurt by the applicants to him or opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has made a vague allegation that she was beaten by the applicants, but the same was not substantiated by any medical report and this fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is no injury report available on record.
Decision
15. In view of the above and on the basis of the material on record, this Court is of the view that no offence under Section 323, 506 IPC is made out against the applicant, therefore, the court below while issue summoning order has not applied its mind on the material available on record. In view of the above the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 391 of 2022 (Radha Sharma Vs. Nidhi Sharma alias Bittu and others), under Sections 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj including the summoning order dated 20.02.2023 is hereby quashed. 16. With the aforesaid observation, the present application is allowed. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad