Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 206 (ALL)

Avnish Mishra @ Avnish Kumar v. State of U. P.

2024-01-18

RAJEEV SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT Rajeev Singh, J. Heard Sri. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Anita, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.3029 of 2023 (Sanjana Mishra @ Salma v. Avneesh Mishra & Ors.) under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of concocted facts. He further submitted that on 5.10.2020, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant no.1 against private respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, which was treated as complaint case; Complaint Case No.3274 of 2021 and summoning order was passed on 16.9.2022. In the aforesaid complaint, it was alleged by the applicant no.1 that in the year 2013, private respondent came to the applicant no.1 in pregnant condition alongwith her husband, Ashutosh Kashyap and requested for providing accommodation on rent, looking condition of private respondent, accommodation was given to her on rent, but in absence of Ashutosh Kashyap, one Jalees visiting the house of private respondent, therefore, applicant no.1 thought that there is some mystery, then he enquired about Jalees and it came into his knowledge that private respondent is a muslim lady and she introduced her as Sanjana only to cheat the people, this fact also came into notice that she was married with Puttu. As after dispute with her earlier husband, Puttu, she started living with Ashutosh Kashyap as husband and wife, but after some time dispute was arisen between Ashutosh Kashyap and private respondent, as a result, Ashutosh Kashyap left the private respondent alongwith her child. He further submitted that applicant facilitated her but she tried to blackmail him with the intention to grab his property and also obtained Aadhar Card, in which, the name of the applicant no.1 was mentioned. He next submitted that on 2.10.2018, in absence of the applicant no.1, private respondent had taken away some ornaments and cash of Rs. 1,38,000/-. 4. He further submitted that applicant facilitated her but she tried to blackmail him with the intention to grab his property and also obtained Aadhar Card, in which, the name of the applicant no.1 was mentioned. He next submitted that on 2.10.2018, in absence of the applicant no.1, private respondent had taken away some ornaments and cash of Rs. 1,38,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the private respondent filed a complaint before the court below on 20.1.2023 with the allegation that in the year 2009, she came in contact with the applicant no.1 and thereafter, she adopted Hindu religion and entered into marriage with him, but it came into her knowledge that he is already married and is having three children and in the meantime, she conceived and a boy was born, and in the year 2018, applicant no.1 started victimizing her, was ousted by the applicants and anyhow, she reached her house, thereafter, applicant no.1 made association with Anamika Agnihotri, R/o Gola, Kheri and entered into marriage with her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned court below committed error in passing summoning order dated 17.6.2023 as general allegations have been levelled against family members of the applicant no.1 and they have no concern, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and the applicants may appear before the court below and apprise all their defence. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that on the advice of the applicant no.1, private respondent adopted Hindu religion, thereafter, he solemnized marriage with her and one child was also born. He further submitted that in earlier order dated 20.9.2023, consent was given by the applicant no.1 for the D.N.A. test of the child of private respondent, the same was done and report has also been submitted by the Director, F.S.L., Lucknow, which is opened by this Court and it is found that applicant no.1 and private respondent are the biological parents of the child, therefore, the applicant no.1 has no case that he is not the father of child of private respondent and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the application as well as other relevant documents, as on 20.9.2023 request was made by the private respondent for D.N.A. test of the child, private respondent and applicant no.1 and applicant no.1 had consented, thereafter, with the joint request of the applicant no.1 as well as private respondent, order was passed to the authorities for the D.N.A. test, thereafter, sample of the applicant no.1 as well as private respondent and child was taken. The D.N.A. test report was placed by the Government Advocate alongwith letter of Superintendent of Police, Kheri dated 12.12.2023, which clearly reveals that applicant no.1 and the private respondent are the biological parent of the child, therefore, the defence of the applicant cannot be considered at this stage. 9. The letter of Superintendent of Police, Kheri and report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow placed by A.G.A. are as under:- 10. After going through the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that as the F.S.L. report clearly reveals that applicant no.1 and private respondent are the biological parents of the child and other defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage, therefore, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and is, accordingly dismissed.