Appeal No. - 5302 of 2013. Case: Reena Verma Vs The State of U.P.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Appeal No. - 5302 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.U. Ahmad and Ajay Sharma, Advs. and For Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Durgesh Kumar Singh, Jitendra Singh, Khilesh Kr Jaiswal, V.M. Verma and Vinod Kumar Misra, Advs. |
| Judges | Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 151, 482; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 |
| Judgement Date | September 02, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
-
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
-
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet no. 54 of 2013 submitted by the police in the aforesaid case.
-
Learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant has an alternative remedy for preferring criminal revision against the said order. The accused person had not challenged proceedings of aforesaid case before the revisional court and straightway approached this Court by moving an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
-
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is also that because of matrimonial dispute proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were initiated in retaliation of the same, the instant criminal proceedings have been initiated by the opposite parties.
-
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. Satish Agrawal reported in (2009) 6 SCC 385 has held that whether a case has been lodged in retaliation, which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it is a matter of trial. The question of fact can be decided only during trial.
-
Apart from it, the order of summoning is a revisable order as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana reported in [2012 (11) SCC 252] has held the revision against the summoning order is maintainable.
-
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayan Reddy reported in [(2011) 12 SCC 437] has held as under:-
It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (Vide Kavita Vs. State, 2000 Cr.L.J. 315Delhi, and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
-
In a very...
To continue reading
Request your trial