HARISHCHANDRA MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
A482/442/2025 · 2025-01-23
Saurabh Lavania
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 118015 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 118015 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4398 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 442 of 2025 Applicant :- Harishchandra Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Asthana,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Santi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Sahi, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as Sri Manish Mani Sharma, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record, and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for the following main relief:-
"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding of criminal case No. 994/2024, arising out of Charge Sheet No. A118/2024, dated 14.06.2024, having case crime No. 66/2024, U/s 498A, 323, 406, 506, 494, 420 IPC, And 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ahirauli, District- Ambedkar Nagar, (State of U.P. v/s Amit Goswami & others) pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Ambedkar Nagar, as well as summoning order dated 20.09.2024,in the interest of justice." Seeking above quoted relief, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is the Manager/Priest of the temple known as Shri Maa Sharda Shaktipeeth, Maher Baali Ka Mandir situated at Shastri Nagar (Permanantpur), Jaunpur, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "Temple") and the opposite party No. 2/informant/Shivani Goswami being annoyed on account of matrimonial dispute/discord with her husband namely Amit Goswami and the marriage solemnized in the Temple by the applicant, which, as per the case of the prosecution, was second marriage of Amit Goswami, lodged the FIR in issue registered as Case Crime No. 0066 on 11.03.2024 at Police Station- Ahirauli, District- Ambedkar Nagar, basis of pending criminal proceedings, making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and Sections 420, 494, 506, 406, 323, 498-A IPC and a perusal thereof would indicate that the informant/victim has not levelled any allegations against the applicant and subsequently, the informant/victim levelled allegations against the applicant during investigation which can be taken note of from the statement of victim annexed at Page No. 66 of the paper book.
The relevant portion of the statement of informant/victim, referred, reads as under:-
"
जब ममरम पपतत जज मनननर ममहर नमवज शतसज नगर जजनपपर तसनजक करनम गयम तत वहतह कम ममनमजर हररवनद पमशत। पपत
बनजपसतन पनवतसज रपहयतव थतनत मतगरत बतनशतहपपर जनपन जजनपपर सम पपछत पक आपनम शतनज-
शपनत लडकम कम सतथ
शतनज कयय करतयज हम तत वह जतन सम मतरनम कक धमकक नमतम हहए बतलत पक भतग जतओ नहह तत मतरकर यहह फफ कवत नफगम।
ममरत रतज कत यहज कतम हम।" It is further stated that after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") filed the charge sheet against the applicant only with regard to the offence as indicated under Section 506 IPC. It is also stated that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Ambedkar Nagar after taking note of the material available on record summoned the accused including the applicant vide order dated 20.09.2024 and in the same it has not been indicated that under which offence the applicant has been summoned. It is further stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, interference of this Court is required in the matter.
Learned counsel for the side opposite stated that specific Section with regard to accused including the applicant has not been indicated in the order dated 20.09.2024 but a perusal of the allegations levelled against the applicant and also the charge sheet would indicate that the applicant has only been summoned under Section 506 IPC and accordingly, justice would suffice if said portion is clarified. It is clarified accordingly. The instant application is disposed of in above terms.
Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench