Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 30, 2011

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917536

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/917536
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.C. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Mar 30, 2011
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13653 of 2008
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[R.V. Raveendran; A. K. Patnaik] Indian Penal Code Section 452 - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Pol...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 156(3), 200, 202; Indian penal code (IPC) - Sections 498-A, 323, 504;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vijay Singh Yadav

Advocate Kamal Singh Yadav,Ray Sahab Yadav, Advs

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Advocate Government Advocate,P.K. Rao,V.B. Rao

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 156(3), 200, 202; Indian penal code (IPC) - Sections 498-A, 323, 504;

Excerpt

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....in the incident of 16.10.2007, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, jeths, nanads and jethanis came to her house for demand of dowry but her devar was not present at that time, whereas according to the statement of halku pw2, devar of the complainant was also present at that time of incident dated 16.10.2007. 9. learned aga and learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order and submitted that summoning order has been passed on the basis of materials available on record and no interference by this court is required. 10. there are specific allegations against the husband and father-in-law of the complainant ( applicant nos. 1 and 2). therefore, no good ground for quashing the proceedings against them is made out. with regards applicant nos. 3 to 9, who are jeth, devar, sisters-in-law sister and nandoi are concerned, there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry or harassment against them. the allegations against them are general in nature. the complainant admitted in her statement under section 200 cr.p.c that mainly father-in-law and the husband used to demand dowry to her and used to harass her. 11. in these circumstances, ground of summoning the applicant nos. 3 to 9 for facing trial are not sufficient and amounts to abuse of the process of the court. it is worthwhile noticing that even the married sister of the applicant no.1 and her husband have been implicated in the case, who live in a different district jhansi, whereas the husband used to live in district lalitpur. 12. the application is partly allowed. 13. summoning order in respect of vijay singh yadav and maheep singh yadav is maintained, whereas the impugned summoning order in respect of applicant nos. 3 to 9, namely, ram sevak, chandan singh, smt. mamta, smt. sunita, azad, smt. narmada and rajendra singh is quashed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard Shri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri P.K. Rao, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.4.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Jhansi District Jhansi in complaint case No.176 of 2008, Police Station Mahila Thana Navabad, district Jhansi (Vandana v. Vijay Singh and others), whereby applicants were summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and D.P. Act.

3. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged.

4. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and father-in-law of the opposite party No.2. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are the Jeths, applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are Jethanis, applicant No.7 is Devar, applicant No.8 is Nanad and applicant No.9 is Nandoi of the complainant.

5. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by opposite party No.2 against the applicants and her mother-in-law on 14.11.2007 alleging therein that she was married with Vijay Singh Yadav on 9.5.2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Nagra, Jhansi. Since marriage all the accused persons started demanding a sum of Rs.8 lacs as dowry. Parents of the complainant, some how, after selling land etc., spent a sum of Rs.5 lacs at the time of marriage and further spent Rs. 3 lacs on various ceremonies and purchasing the ornaments for the complainant. Even after this, the accused persons were not satisfied and used to demand a motor cycle and Rs. 2 lacs in cash.

6. On the occasion of Diwali in the year 2006, the accused persons at about 5p.m. surrounded the complainant, hurled abuses and threatened to beat her and demanded dowry. On 20.4.2007, her in-laws snatched away her clothes and ornaments and turned out of the house and refused to take her back unless a sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid. On 16.10.2007 at about 10 p.m, the accused persons came to the parental house of the complainant, hurled abuses, demanded Rs.2 lacs and beat the complainant with kicks and fists and threatened her to kill if she was returned to her Sasural without dowry.

7. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was treated by the complainant as a complaint. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Smt. Vandana Yadav, Halku and Shri Kamal Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order summoned the applicants to face trial.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the opposite party No.2. The mother-in-law of the complainant has not been made an accused but the whole family of the husband including his father, brothers, married sister, brother in-law and sisters in-law have been implicated. The attention of the court has been drawn towards the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, whereas initially the complainant stated that all the accused persons used to harass on account of demand of dowry but further admitted that mainly her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to demand dowry. She further admitted in her statement that in the incident of 16.10.2007, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jeths, Nanads and Jethanis came to her house for demand of dowry but her Devar was not present at that time, whereas according to the statement of Halku Pw2, Devar of the complainant was also present at that time of incident dated 16.10.2007.

9. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order and submitted that summoning order has been passed on the basis of materials available on record and no interference by this Court is required.

10. There are specific allegations against the husband and father-in-law of the complainant ( applicant Nos. 1 and 2). Therefore, no good ground for quashing the proceedings against them is made out. With regards applicant Nos. 3 to 9, who are Jeth, Devar, sisters-in-law sister and Nandoi are concerned, there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry or harassment against them. The allegations against them are general in nature. The complainant admitted in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C that mainly father-in-law and the husband used to demand dowry to her and used to harass her.

11. In these circumstances, ground of summoning the applicant Nos. 3 to 9 for facing trial are not sufficient and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. It is worthwhile noticing that even the married sister of the applicant No.1 and her husband have been implicated in the case, who live in a different district Jhansi, whereas the husband used to live in district Lalitpur.

12. The application is partly allowed.

13. Summoning order in respect of Vijay Singh Yadav and Maheep Singh Yadav is maintained, whereas the impugned summoning order in respect of applicant Nos. 3 to 9, namely, Ram Sevak, Chandan Singh, Smt. Mamta, Smt. Sunita, Azad, Smt. Narmada and Rajendra Singh is quashed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Vijay Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.C. Agarwal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 156(3), ...

Criminal