HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8206 of 2022 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence and summoning order dated 12.4.2022 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.5361 of 2020, under Sections 323, 406, 494, 506 IPC relating to Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings (Dinesh Kumar Awasthi vs. Jyotima Awasthi and others) so far as it relates to the applicant with a further prayer to stay the operation of summoning order as aforesaid. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no.2 which was treated as complaint vide order dated 14.10.2020 and thereafter, he was directed to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and produce witness in support thereof. 4. In compliance of direction, the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as well as the statements of Raj Bahadur Rana-PW1 and Kamlesh Awasthi-PW2 were recorded. 5. After going through the record as well as the statements of PW-1 and PW- 2, the concerned court issued summons against the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, being wife of Saurabh Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Suresh Kumar Smt. Jyotima Awasthi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Awasthi, who is the son of opposite party no.2. It is submitted that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prior to the present complaint that is why to get vengeance, the present complaint has been filed by father-in-law against the applicant. A bare perusal of the complaint indicates that all the articles, jewellery belongs to the applicant and even if she had taken the same, the same belongs to her therefore, no offence is said to be committed. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that there are various contradictions in the statements of PW1 and PW2 and complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2. He has submitted that the applicant being wife has been harassed by her in-laws and family members. She has not left the house rather she was harassed by her in-laws that is why she was forced to leave the house. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit and has submitted that the applicant is a criminal minded lady because she gave poison on 09.11.2019 to her daughter, anyhow she was saved. It is further submitted that she has performed second marriage with one Anul and she had gone along with him to Mumbai. She used to send threatening messages from new Mobile No.9076893588. She came on 20.5.2020 at 10:00 p.m. and said that if they would not keep her in the house of in-laws, she would kill the family members. The opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 01.07.2020, against the applicant and her family members. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has produced the judgment passed by the IInd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli dated 23.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Case No.269 of 2020, which is pertaining to Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant has been rejected and attention has been drawn towards the finding recorded by the Court that the applicant's location was found in Mumbai and she had gone to Mumbai leaving the house of her in-laws. It is further submitted that she was not harassed by her in-laws and she has sufficient means to sustain herself and thereafter the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The order dated 23.5.2025 passed in 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings is taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party has further pointed out certain whatsapp chats which has been filed along with counter affidavit which indicates that the applicant was residing in Mumbai. It is further submitted that from a bare perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of PW1 and A482 No. 8206 of 2022 2 PW2, offence is made out. The applicant had left the house for which a missing report was lodged on 09.03.2020 by father-in-law. 10. After going through the record, I find that offence is made out against the applicant. A bare perusal of the statements of PW1, PW2 and the complaint impugned, specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant of theft of Rs.60,000/-, jewellery and other articles. It has also been borne out from the record that report of NCR was also lodged by father-in-law, when she had left the house of in-laws, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the court concerned. 11. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant may be granted the benefit of the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (AIR 2022 SC 3386). 13. It is therefore, directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court below within two weeks from today and prefer bail application, the court below will decide the said bail application, as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) and decide it in accordance with law. October 9, 2025 Pks A482 No. 8206 of 2022 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench