Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3189 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2015-10-09

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2015
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred for quashing the proceedings of complaint case No. 625/ 2014 Sudhir Srivastava v. Anil Kumar Srivastava & others u/ss 323, 504, 427 IPC pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (/Addl. Civil Judge, S.D.- II), Siddhartha Nagar and the summoning order dated 15-11-2014 passed in it. 3. It is admitted case of the parties that Nisha Srivastava, d/o Anil Srivastava was married with Sudhir Srivastava in year 2012. After some time of marriage their relationship deteriorated and she had started living with her father. Their domestic quarrel reached in the court in form of filing by her (1) complaint case no. 1467/ 2014 Nisha Srivastava v. Sudhir Srivastava & 9 others u/ss 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & section 3/4 D.P. Act. In this case complainant Nisha Srivastava had mad accused 10 persons including her husband, devar (brothers of husband), unmarried and married nanad (sisters of husband), husband of nanad, husband's mama, mausa and mausi (maternal uncle and aunt of husband). She also filed (2) case of maintenance u/s 125 CrPC against her husband Sudhir Srivastava, in which maintenance was awarded in her favour. She also filed (3) a case under Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family members. 4. It is also admitted that Sudhir Srivastava had filed a complaint case No. 625/ 2014 against Anil Kumar Srivastava and his two sons and one Umesh Srivastava. In this case after accepting evidences u/ss 200 and 202 CrPC the court below had passed impugned summoning order dated 15-11-2014 by which three accused (present applicants) were summoned for offences u/ss 323, 504, 427 IPC. In present petition u/s482 CrPC the prayer is made for quashing the said complaint case and summoning order. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Nisha Srivastava (daughter of applicant no.-1 and sister of applicant no.-2) had filed several cases against her husband (present OP no. 2). Therefore, for pressurizing her and harassing her through her brother and sister the husband Sudhir Srivastava (OP no.-2) had falsely instituted the complaint case in which applicants were summoned on the basis of false evidence. This is abuse of process of cour. 2). Therefore, for pressurizing her and harassing her through her brother and sister the husband Sudhir Srivastava (OP no.-2) had falsely instituted the complaint case in which applicants were summoned on the basis of false evidence. This is abuse of process of cour. In the interest of justice and for preventing abuse of legal process in the form of complaint case and providing justice, the inherent power of court should be exercised and proceedings of said complaint case should be quashed. He also contended that there is material contradictions in statements of witnesses examined under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. But those facts were ignored by the court below which had passed summoning order in question which should be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the OP no.-2 refuted the allegations of applicant side and contended that applicants had committed the offence for which they were summoned. They had committed the overt acts due to enmity and for harassing the OP no.-2 who has already been harassed by Nisha Srivastava who had several filed several false cases under directions of the applicants. The trial court had found prima faice case and thereafter summoned the accused applicants, and finding of fact of the trial court cannot be quashed without sufficient believable reasons. Therefore this application should be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the complaint, statement of complainant/ OP no.-2 u/s 200 CrPC, the statements of two witnesses examined u/s 202 CrPC as well as the summoning order of the Magistrate reveals that court below had considered the facts and evidences adduced before it and thereafter found that offence u/s 323, 504 427 IPC appears to be have been committed by the applicants. Therefore, the said court passed summoning order accordingly against the applicants-accused. Whether the order passed by the court below is proper or not on those facts, is a matter of appreciation of evidences. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction of court, the meticulous scrutiny of evidence like trial court or appellate court is not possible. Finding of trial court cannot be interfered in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that on the basis of adduced evidences other inference different from one reached by the court below may be possible. The proceedings under challenge cannot be quashed simply on the ground that daughter of applicant no.-1 had instituted illegal proceedings against opposite party no.-2/complainant. The proceedings under challenge cannot be quashed simply on the ground that daughter of applicant no.-1 had instituted illegal proceedings against opposite party no.-2/complainant. There appears no illegality or abuse or process of court at this stage during the proceedings under challenge. The impugned order appears to have been passed on merits and there appears no illegality in it. 8. For the reasons discussed above, I find no sufficient ground to interfere in proceedings of the court below exercising the inherent jurisdiction of Court. Therefore, this application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.