SATNAM KAUR AND 5 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P., THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
A482/3656/2025 · 2025-05-01
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 137245 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 137245 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25266
Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3656 of 2025 Applicant :- Satnam Kaur And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. In light of the proposed order notice to respondent N o.2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS) the petitioners have challenged order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in case No.6702 of 2023 (filed under Section 12 of domestic Violence Act) wherein notices have been issued to the petitioners who are the opposite parties in the said case. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that opposite party No.2 is wife of applicant No.6 while applicant No.1 is mother-in-law of opposite party No.2, applicant No.s 2 and 3 are the sister-in-laws of opposite party No.2; applicants No.s 4 and 5 are husbands of applicant No.s 2 and 3 respectively and accordingly are brother in law of opposite party No.2. 5. Opposite party No.2.had moved a complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 18.12.2023 alleging that she was married to opposite party No.6 on 7.5.2023 and during the marriage the parents of opposite party No.2 had given about Rs.25 lakhs in dowry and also that applicant No.s 2 to 5 are also living in Lucknow i.e. L-II/2, Sector D, LDA Colony near CMS School Kanpur Road Krishna Nagar, Lucknow and Manak Nagar Lucknow respectively. 6. Her main thrust of allegations is that because she did not bring adequate dowry she was continuously physically and mentally harassed by them and was subjected to physical and
mental torture. She stated that all the petitioners have got together and after due meeting started harassing opposite party No.2 and there are specific allegations with regard to opposite party No.2 to 5 to the effect that without her permission they entered into her bed room and abused her and whenever she complained about the said act to her mother in law and husband they again abuse and did not support opposite party No.2.
They were regularly demanding further Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and Scorpio car and subsequently started to tell her to leave her matrimonial home so that he can marry again to any other lady on the other hand opposite party No.2 can also marry to another person. It is in aforesaid circumstances that she moved application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act and also prayed for protection order and also for an order for her residence in terms of Section 12 and 19 and also prayed for interim protection. It is on the compliant under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act that the trial court by mean off order dated 18.12.2023 had registered the said case and issued notices to the petitioners. Petitioner No.s 1 to 6 have already put in appearance before the trial court and also filed their objection regarding maintainability of the said complaint. It is stated hat the said objections are still pending consideration and by means of f the present petition the same objection have been sought to be canvassed in the present petition. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioners have already put in appearance before the trial court and raised their objections and the same ground which are sought to be raised before this Court, we find that two parallel proceedings cannot be entertained in two different forms. The petitioner would be at liberty to move application during the trial. 8. In light of the above, we do not find it a fit case for interference at this stage. Considering that in the matter the trial court is seized with the issues which have been raised in the present petition. For the aforesaid reason the petition stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.5.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench