Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4647 (ALL)

Nitin Mohan Sharma v. State of U. P.

2026-02-06

Subhash Chandra Sharma

body2026
JUDGMENT : SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the Sate and perused the material on record. 2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.2971 of 2015, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. (Vikash Shukla Vs. Nitin Mohan & others), Police Station Shahganj, District Agra pending the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth Agra alongwith summoning order dated 05.09.2016 and also prays to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Facts in brief are that the opposite party no.2 Vikas Shukla was married to Pooja on 13.07.2013. After marriage it came into the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 that Pooja was mentally ill prior to the performance of marriage and this fact was concealed by the applicants and marriage was performed. The opposite party no.2 filed a case for getting the marriage declared to be void u/s 12 of Hindu Marriage Act in which ex-parte decree was passed on 06.04.2015 in Case No.969/2014. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants that by concealing the fact of mental illness relating to the wife (Pooja) marriage was performed with him. The statement of the opposite party no.2 was recorded by learned magistrate court u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses PW-1, Dilip Kumar Saini and PW-2, Neema Shukla u/s 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which order in question dated 05.09.2016 was passed by learned Magistrate. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the order passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and erroneous, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the dispute between the opposite party no.2 and the applicants was related to marriage regarding which civil remedy is available but giving criminal color to the civil dispute present complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 without any proof about the fact that Pooja was mentally ill prior to the marriage with opposite party no.2 and without any report of expert in this regard. Learned court has passed the order in question only on the basis of statements of complainant/husband (Vikash) and two other persons said to be his friends and on the basis of ex-parte decree dated 06.04.2015 for which recall was filed and the case is still pending. Further submitted that a criminal case u/s 498-A, 307, 323, 354B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act was lodged against the opposite party no.2 by the wife in relation to her torture by him and other members of his family on 12.07.2015. For avoiding the liabilities present case has been filed with false allegations. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that there was no any such report on record to show that wife of opposite party no.2 namely Pooja was mentally ill prior to the performance of marriage and also the fact that for declaring the marriage void u/s 12 Hindu Marriage Act remedy is available to the opposite party no.2 and criminal proceedings cannot go on since the dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court is erroneous and is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the fact of mental illness was concealed by the applicants at the time of marriage and later on when this fact came into the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 he filed the present complaint since the applicants ruined his life by marrying a girl who was already mentally ill. It is also contended that the opposite party no.2 provided treatment regarding mental illness in several hospitals the prescriptions of which have also been filed which show that she was mentally unfit prior to the performance of marriage and this fact was concealed by the applicants, therefore, offence u/s 420, 120B I.P.C. is prima facie made out and on this basis ex-parte decree was also granted in favour of opposite party no.2. Learned Magistrate court has considered all these facts and the evidence on record and then passed the order in question. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Magistrate court has considered all these facts and the evidence on record and then passed the order in question. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court, it appears that opposite party no.2 was married with Pooja who is sister of applicant nos.1, 2 & 3 namely Nitin Mohan Sharma, Pawan Sharma & Manu Sharma and daughter of applicant no.4- Raj Kumari Sharma. There is nothing on record to show that she was mentally ill prior to the alleged marriage with the opposite party no.2 though some papers regarding prescriptions of her treatment for mental health have been filed but on that basis it cannot be said that she was mentally ill prior to the marriage. In the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 it has been mentioned that his wife Pooja @ Kamini was married to him on 13.07.2013 and thereafter from her conduct he came to know that she was mentally ill and she was suffering from serious mental illness prior to the alleged marriage. He took opinion from mental health expert who told him that she was mentally ill for a long period and was incurable. He also filed a Case No.969 of 2014 (Vikas Shukla vs. Pooja @ Kamini) which was decided on 06.04.2015 on the ground of mental illness and ex-parte decree was granted in his favour declaring the marriage to be void. This fact was concealed by the applicants and Pooja was married with him who subjected the opposite party no.2 to harassment and also spoiled his life. Under section 200 Cr.P.C. he made similar statement as aforesaid. PW-1 Dilip Kumar Saini told himself to be friend of opposite party no.2 and stated that Pooja was suffering from mental illness in the house of his friend when he went to his house after marriage. Likewise, PW-2 Neema Shukla also made statement regarding the behaviour of Pooja after marriage. There is no other evidence of mental health expert on record. Likewise, PW-2 Neema Shukla also made statement regarding the behaviour of Pooja after marriage. There is no other evidence of mental health expert on record. Learned trial court has also passed the order dated 05.09.2016 on the basis of contents of complaint, the statement of opposite party no.2 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of PW-1 & PW-2 u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and also the ex-parte decree passed by learned civil court u/s 12 Hindu Marriage Act in Case No.969/2014. It is to note that the ex-parte decree has also been recalled and now that case u/s 12 Hindu Marriage Act for getting the marriage declared to be void is still pending. It is also to note that regarding misbehaviour of opposite party no.2 and other members of his family with Pooja a case u/s 498-A, 307, 323, 354B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act has also been lodged by the applicant no.1. 7. From the above analysis of facts it transpires that the dispute between the opposite party no.2 & the applicants is related to the fact of mental health of his wife Pooja prior to the marriage said to be concealed at the time of marriage by the applicants regarding which remedy is available u/s12 Hindu Marriage Act and case for annulment of marriage on this ground is still pending before the learned civil court. In this way the dispute between the parties is of civil nature but given the cloak of criminal offence. 8. It is settled principle of law that where the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and civil remedy is available to him no criminal colour can be given to such dispute between the parties. 9. In the case of Naresh Kumar & Another v. State of Karnataka & Another 2024 INSC 196 it was observed that the high court should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings which are essentially of civil nature. 10. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 it was also observed that the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of the court. 11. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of the court. 11. Thus in the present case in hand the learned Magistrate failed to consider the material on record in proper perspective and summoned the applicants by passing the order in question mechanically without applying its judicial mind as a result the order passed by learned Magistrate being illegal and erroneous is not tenable in the eyes of law. In case proceedings are allowed to go on it will be clear abuse of process of law, therefore, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2971/2015 including the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 05.09.2016 are, hereby, quashed. 12. Accordingly, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.