DHARAMVEER ALIAS DHARAMVEER YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/10581/2025 · 2025-04-02
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35315 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35315 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46739 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10581 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharamveer Alias Dharamveer Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Shobh Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shobh Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 20.06.2021 and summoning order dated 13.06.2023 in Case No. 21358/2023, Case Crime No. 0206/2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shahganj, District- Agra.
4. Fact giving rise to the present case is that the marriage of the applicant and the sister of opposite party No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2020. Subsequently, a matrimonial discord arose between them which resulted into the impugned proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned proceeding is absolutely malicious as the sister of opposite party No.2 herself filed divorce petition on 31.1.2024. Therefore, the impugned proceeding deserves to be quashed.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and states that the F.I.R. in question was lodged on 5.6.2021 and the divorce petition was filed in the year 2024, therefore, it cannot be said that the proceeding is malicious.
7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is specific allegation against the applicant (husband). Even otherwise, the contention of the counsel for applicant that the sister of opposite party No.2 herself filed the divorce petition and then started the impugned proceeding is misconceived as the F.I.R. in question was lodged three years prior to the filing of the divorce petition.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad