Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 570 (UTT)

Sadiq v. State Of Uttarakhand

2019-11-07

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. Since both the petitions have been filed by the applicants for challenging the common summoning order passed by the court below, hence both are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The applicants have filed the present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') for quashing the charge sheet dated 07.4.2018, summoning order dated 19.04.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1891 of 2018, State vs. Sadiq and others, u/s 452, 376, 506 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the crime and there is no offence is made out against them. Apart from that the applicant-Sadiq and respondent no.2-Ujma got married on 15.10.2017 with the Muslim Rites and Rituals, while FIR was lodged on 21.12.2017, which shows that after solemnized the marriage the FIR was lodged. 4. The learned Magistrate did not peruse the evidence collected during the investigation and did not notice this fact and simply summoned the accused under the said offences, while no offence is made out against the present applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent fairly submits that the compromise has taken place between the parties outside the court. 6. Since the respondent no.2 Ujma has already performed the marriage with the applicant-Sadiq according to Muslim Rites and Rituals on 15.10.2017, hence, no offences are made out against the present applicants under Sections 376 and 452 IPC. As regards, under Section under Section 506 IPC is concerned, no abusing language was used by the other accused, namely, Afsar, Mohd. Arshad, Javed and Naziya Parveen, nor threatening to life was given to the respondent no.2 by them. 7. The respondent no.2- Ujma is present before this Court along with her mother and fairly submitted that it is true that she has already performed the marriage with the applicant-Sadiq according to the Muslim Rites and Rituals on 15.10.2017, she also submitted that she is living with the applicant-Sadiq as wife. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear the respondent no.2 Ujma has already solemnized the marriage with the applicant-Sadiq according to Muslim Rites and Rituals on 15.10.2017, while the present FIR was lodged on 21.12.2017, just after two months of the marriage. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear the respondent no.2 Ujma has already solemnized the marriage with the applicant-Sadiq according to Muslim Rites and Rituals on 15.10.2017, while the present FIR was lodged on 21.12.2017, just after two months of the marriage. 9. Since the respondent no.2-Ujma is the wife of the applicant-Sadiq, hence, being the husband no offence is made out under Sections 376 and 452 IPC. As regards under Section 506 IPC is concerned the other accused, namely, Afsar, Mohd. Arshad, Javed and Naziya Parveen, as per the evidence collected during the investigation, there is no evidence on record that the present accused had given threatening to life to respondent no.2-Ujma. There is no prima facie evidence on record to summon the accused under the said offence. The concerned court did not peruse the evidence collected during the investigation; he simply summoned the accused on the basis of charge sheet, while there is no prima facie evidence on record against the present accused. 10. In these circumstances, both applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 07.04.2018, summoning order dated 19.04.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1891 of 2018, State vs. Sadiq and others, u/s 452, 376, 506 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Haldwani, District Nainital, are hereby quashed. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.