ANKITA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4121 of 2023

Ankita Sharma
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : V.K. Baranwal, Vivek Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh, G.A.

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
                                                        A482 No. 4121 of 2023
                               2


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
                                3


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
                               4


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
                               5


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
                                                                    6


                                    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.



                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Naresh




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad