Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 144 (ALL)

Kahkashan Begum v. State of U. P.

2015-01-21

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shibli Naseem, learned cousnel for opp. party no.2 and Sri R.K. Maurya,learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.1548 of 2012 (Mohd. Sarfaraz Vs. Kahkashan Begum and others), under Sections 384,323,504 I.P.C., Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Ist, Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as summoning order dated 10.7.2013 passed in the aforesaid complaint case. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for opp. party no.2 or learned AGA for the State. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant no.1 and opp. party no.2 was solemnized on 20.2.2006 according to Muslim rites and rituals and sufficient household articles and other gifts were given in the said marriage. When the applicant no.1 went to her in-laws' house, her in-laws were not satisfied with the aritles given in the marriage and they started demanding a colour T.V. and a motorcycle from the applicant no.1 and her parents and for which the applicant no.1 was being tortured and cruelly treated by them, but she continued to discharge her matrimonial obligations. In the year 2008 she was so badly beaten and on account of which she gave birth to a dead baby. Ultimately, She was ousted from the house on 1.10.2012 as she gave birth to a dead child. Thereafter, the applicant no.1 tried to lodge an FIR against her husband opp.party no.2 but in spite of her efforts the same could not be registered, hence she filed a complaint before the Court below which was registered as Complaint Case No.645 of 2013 (Kahkashan Vs. Sarfaraz and others). The opp. party no.2 in retaliation filed the present complaint against his wife who is applicant no.1 and her family members on 20.10.2012, on which the statement of opp. party no.2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and the applicants have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.7.2013 to face the trial for the offence under Sections 384,323,5-04 I.P.C.,Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur. party no.2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and the applicants have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.7.2013 to face the trial for the offence under Sections 384,323,5-04 I.P.C.,Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur. Hence, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of the present complaint case as well as summoning order. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant no.1 is the wife of opp. party no.2 and she after her marriage was tortured and cruelly treated by opp. party no.2 and his family members, for which the applicant no.1 had filed a complaint under Section 498A etc. against opp. party no.2 and his family and they have been summoned by the trial court and are facing the prosecution, in order to harass the applicant no.1 and her family members the op. party no.2 has filed the present complaint as a pressure tactics to the applicant no.1 to withdraw her complaint which she has filed against opp. party no.2. He further submits that the present complaint filed by opp. party no.2 against the applicant is nothing but a misuse of the process of the law for malicious prosecution of the applicants. Moreover, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the applicants at all as the compliant is a vague and bald allegations have been made in the complaint against the applicants by opp. party no.2 He further submits that matter was earlier taken up by this court on 25.9.2013 and the same was referred to the Mediation Centre of this court vide order dated 25.9.2013 for settlement of their dispute, but the mediation has failed on 27.11.2013. 6. Learned counsel for opp. party no.2 as well as learned AGA on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, but they could not dispute the fact that opp. party no.2 who is husband of applicant no.1 is also facing prosecution at her hands in matrimonial litigation. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted case that applicant no.1 and op. party no.2 who is husband of applicant no.1 is also facing prosecution at her hands in matrimonial litigation. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted case that applicant no.1 and op. party no.2 are husband and wife who were married to each other in the year 2006 according to Muslim traditions and there appears to have been some bitterness between them after marriage and she was being tortured by her husband opp. party no.2 and her in-laws for demand of a colour T.V. and a motorcycle from applicant no.1 and her parents, which could not be fulfilled and on account of which harassment which was made by opp. party no.2 and his family members physically and mentally, the applicant no.1 who was carrying a child in her womb became so much stressed and gave a birth of a dead child in the year 2008 and ultimately she was ousted from her in-laws matrimonial home on 1.10.2012. The opp. party no.2 is also facing prosecution at the hands of his wife wife applicant no.1 in which he and his family members are being prosecuted and proceedings initiated by him against his wife and her family members who are applicants in the present case are only vague and general allegations have been made which does not corroborate by any independent and cogent evidence excepting his evidence and his family members and even if the same is taken to be true on the face of it, the same does not disclose any offence against the applicant. The prosecution of the applicant further appears to be a malicious one which has been initiated by op. party no.2 against the applicant no.1 and her family members to pressurize them to withdraw the criminal prosecution launched against them by the applicants for the offence under Section 498 I.P.C. etc. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case no.1548 of 2012 (Mohd. Sarfaraz Vs. Kahkashan Begum and others), as well as summoning order 10.7.2013 are hereby quashed. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.