HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4121 of 2023 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri V.K. Baranwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 3. Despite name of Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet. 4. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the summoning order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur along with entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3978 of 2017 (Nitin Sharma vs. Ankita Sharma) under Section 323, 504, 427 IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased stay the further proceeding Complaint Case No. 3978 of 2017 (Nitin Sharma vs. Ankita Sharma) under Section 323, 504, 427 IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : V.K. Baranwal, Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh, G.A. Ankita Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Magistrate, Gorakhpur, during the pendency the present application, and or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under these circumstances of the case." 5. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 25.10.2017 was filed by the opposite party no.2/Nitin Sharma against the applicant- Ankita Sharma and five others for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 392, 405 I.P.C., alleging therein that he was married to Ankita Sharma on 06.12.2012. When his wife came to her matrimonial house, she used to insult his parents. He is only son of his parents and thus used to avoid her actions. After some days his wife stopped talking to his parents and even his guests who visited the house. She used to often break the utensils and assaulted his mother with hanger, which was a common feature. But in order to save his marital life, he used to avoid it. He subsequently became a patient of hypertension and depression. His parents also became heart patients due to the said torture. On 10.11.2015 his wife was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School and then torture increased. On 06.10.2017 at about 07:30 p.m. when he was not at the house and his parents had gone for treatment, his wife called him and on receiving call started abusing him and threatening him. He then reached the house at 07:45 p.m. where he saw that photo-frame, glass and mirror were broken by her. When she was stopped about, she chased him for assault and in the meantime, her parents came there and also called her relatives, after which his parents were assaulted and then the clothes, jewellery and Rs.25,000/- were taken by Ankita and her family members. Police was informed on phone but no action was taken. Then on 07.10.2017 at about 09:30 a.m. Ankita Sharma and other accused persons forcibly entered into the house and assaulted his parents and threatened them of murder. On the said complaint the statements of the complainant Nitin Sharma was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses Bhartiya Sharma as P.W.-1 and Anil Arora as P.W.-2 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. Subsequently vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Gorakhpur, Ankita Sharma only was summoned for offences under Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been A482 No. 4121 of 2023 2 falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party no.2. It is argued that the applicant was married with opposite party no.2 on 06.12.2012. There was matrimonial dispute between the parties due to which a First Information Report was lodged by the applicant on 11.10.2017 as Case Crime No. 585 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the opposite party no.2, Deep Kumar Sharma the father-in-law and Bharti Sharma the mother-in-law after which the present complaint has been filed on 25.10.2017 by the opposite party no.2 just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. 8. While placing paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant succeeded to get job as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the year 2015 and thereafter she was being tortured for providing total salary for which she was beaten by O.P. No.2 as well as his mother and father several times. She lodged an F.I.R. dated 11.10.2017 as Case Crime No. 585 of 2017, under Section 323, 504, 498- A IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act at Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur against the O.P. No.2 and his mother and father namely Bharti Sharma and Deep Kumar Sharma. The photo copy of the F.I.R. dated 11.10.2017 bearing Case Crime No. 585/2017 lodged by the applicant against O.P. No.2 has been placed before the Court which is Annexure No.1 to the affidavit. 9. It is further submitted that after coming to know about the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant against the O.P. No.2 and his father and mother, they started to make pressure upon the applicant to withdraw the case. The O.P. No.2 only to save his skin on the basis of fabricated story filed the complaint on 25.10.2017 against the applicant alongwith her other five relatives under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 392, 405 IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur. It is submitted that the complaint was filed leveling the same allegations against Ankita Sharma and 5 others accused but the trial court did not summon the other 5 persons but has summon the applicant only and thus the the trial court did not find the allegations against the other co-accused to be true and did not summon them. It is submitted that the trial court finding the other allegations to be false and thus did not summon the accused-applicant under the other A482 No. 4121 of 2023 3 sections but summon her only under Section 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. It is submitted that the present case is case of no injury as there is no medical examination report of any injured filed by the complainant and even no one has stated that any person was medically examined. It is submitted that the present proceedings are with malafide intentions. 10. Learned counsel has relied upon para-102 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others: 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 and has submitted that one of the categories being category no.7 in the said judgement for quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of malafides intentions and counterblast. Para-102 of the said judgement reads as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint A482 No. 4121 of 2023 4 and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 11. It is argued that as such the proceedings as initiated against the applicant are clearly abuse of process of law and thus the same be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the dispute stems out of a matrimonial relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2012. The complaint was filed leveling the same allegations against Ankita Sharma the applicant and 5 others accused persons but the trial court did not summon the other 5 persons but has summon the applicant only and thus the the trial court did A482 No. 4121 of 2023 5 not find the allegations against the other co-accused to be true and did not summon them. Further the trial court finding the other allegations to be false and thus did not summon the accused-applicant under the other sections but summon her only under Section 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. The present case is case of no injury as there is no medical examination report of any injured filed by the complainant and even no one has stated that any person was medically examined. The present proceedings appears to be filed with malafide intentions. 14. In view of the above discussion and the laws laid down by the Apex Court, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserved to be allowed and thus the same is allowed. 15. The impugned summoning order and the proceedings of the said complaint case are hereby quashed. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 11, 2026 Naresh A482 No. 4121 of 2023 6 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad