# Manisha Ajariya v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1224 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-03 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manisha-ajariya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44168 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Introduction & Invocation: The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a chargesheet dated January 24, 2010, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Mahrauli, Lalitpur. The chargesheet alleged offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition (D.P.) Act. Notice and Counsel's Instructions: The case was taken up as a mentioned matter. Although directed to inform the opposite party No.2 (the complainant/wife), her counsel stated at the bar that she had received no further instructions from her client for a long time. Nature of Dispute & Personal Status: The applicant's counsel submitted that the core matrimonial discord between the husband and wife had been amicably settled, and they are now living together peacefully. The applicant is not a family member but merely a business partner of the husband. She was roped into the case by the wife out of sheer suspicion regarding her relationship with the husband. Investigation Anomalies: The Investigating Officer (I.O.) explicitly noted in the chargesheet that the applicant does not fall under the legal definition of a "relative of the husband." Despite this finding, the I.O. submitted the chargesheet against her, and the Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without considering this fact. Acquittal of Main Accused: The husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law were already acquitted by the trial court on July 28, 2012, following the compromise. The case against the applicant remained pending solely because of an interim stay order granted by the High Court back on November 28, 2011. State's Opposition: The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State opposed the quashing application but could not produce any facts or evidence to contradict the applicant's submissions. Legal Analysis of Section 498-A IPC: The Court analyzed Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing that the text strictly 8 All. Manisha Ajariya Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1225 penalizes cruelty by the "husband or relative of the husband." The statutory definition does not extend to business partners or friends. Final Order: Finding that the applicant is not a relative under Section 498-A IPC, and noting that the husband and in-laws have already been acquitted, the High Court allowed the application. The entire criminal proceeding and the underlying chargesheet against the applicant were officially quashed. List of Citations :- ## Text 1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1224 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 38560 Of 2011 Manisha Ajariya ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Kashif Zaidi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Ms. Ruchita Jain Held - Introduction & Invocation: The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a chargesheet dated January 24, 2010, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Mahrauli, Lalitpur. The chargesheet alleged offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition (D.P.) Act. Notice and Counsel's Instructions: The case was taken up as a mentioned matter. Although directed to inform the opposite party No.2 (the complainant/wife), her counsel stated at the bar that she had received no further instructions from her client for a long time. Nature of Dispute & Personal Status: The applicant's counsel submitted that the core matrimonial discord between the husband and wife had been amicably settled, and they are now living together peacefully. The applicant is not a family member but merely a business partner of the husband. She was roped into the case by the wife out of sheer suspicion regarding her relationship with the husband. Investigation Anomalies: The Investigating Officer (I.O.) explicitly noted in the chargesheet that the applicant does not fall under the legal definition of a "relative of the husband." Despite this finding, the I.O. submitted the chargesheet against her, and the Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without considering this fact. Acquittal of Main Accused: The husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law were already acquitted by the trial court on July 28, 2012, following the compromise. The case against the applicant remained pending solely because of an interim stay order granted by the High Court back on November 28, 2011. State's Opposition: The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State opposed the quashing application but could not produce any facts or evidence to contradict the applicant's submissions. Legal Analysis of Section 498-A IPC: The Court analyzed Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing that the text strictly 8 All. Manisha Ajariya Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1225 penalizes cruelty by the "husband or relative of the husband." The statutory definition does not extend to business partners or friends. Final Order: Finding that the applicant is not a relative under Section 498-A IPC, and noting that the husband and in-laws have already been acquitted, the High Court allowed the application. The entire criminal proceeding and the underlying chargesheet against the applicant were officially quashed. List of Citations :- 1. Criminal Case No. 174 of 2010 (A.C.J.M. Mahrauli, Lalitpur). 2. Judgment dated 28.07.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. Mahrauli (acquitting the co-accused). (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State Perused the records. 2. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 24.01.2010 submitted in Criminal Case No.174 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahrauli, District Lalitpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrauli, Lalipur. 3. This case has been taken up today as a mentioned case. The learned counsel for the applicant making mention was directed to inform the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that this case shall be taken up at 12.00 noon. Learned counsel has stated at bar that when he informed Ms. Ruchika Jain, learned counsel opposite party No.2, she stated that she had no futher instructions from her client i.e.opposite party No.2 since long. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a dispute arising out of matrimonial discord and now, the husband and wife have amicably settled this dispute. Now, they are living peacefully together, whereas the applicant, who has absolutely no concern with this matrimonial dispute and, who is merely a business partner of the husband of opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily being harassed due to the criminal case lodged against her by opposite party No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Mahrauli, District Lalitpur, only in order to settle her grouse based on suspicion about the relationship between her husband and the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned charge sheet filed by the Police in which the I.O. has even clearly mentioned that the applicant does not come under the definition of "relative of husband", but despite this, he has submitted charge sheet against the applicant without proper investigation and the learned Magistrate too, without even considering this fact, has mechanically taken cognizance on the said charge sheet. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the fact that husband and wife are living together, opposite party No.2 (wife) will never appear before the court concerned and will try to keep the matter to remain pending, which is already pending since 2011. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Judgment dated 28.07.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. Mahrauli, District Laitpur in the same case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in 1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the aforesaid matter all the other co-accused persons including even the husband, mother-in-law, father-inlaw have already been acquitted on the ground of compromise, but the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending due to an interim stay order dated 28.11.2011 passed by this Court with regard to applicant. 6. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act be quashed. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the same, but he has not pointed out any relevant fact contradictory to the aforesaid submissions. 8. Section 498-A of I.P.C., which is reproduced below envisages in unequivocal terms about cruelty and harassment by husband or his relatives. It no where provides about harassment byfriends of the husband. Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.?Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means? (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 9. Thus, it is clear that the applicant does not come within the purview of Section 498-A of IPC. The husband and his family members (in-laws), who were the main accused, have already been acquitted by the learned trial court itself. However, the case of applicant remained pending only due to an interim order of this Court. 10. Considering all these facts and circumstances, this application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The entire proceedings against the present applicant in pursuance of the said charge sheet filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act are hereby quashed. ----------- 8 All. Laxmi Narain Tewari (Inre 16917 S/S 2016) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1227 (2016) 8 ILRA 1227 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J. Special Appeal No.- 351 Of 2016 Laxmi Narain Tewari (Inre 16917 S/S 2016) ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Om Prakash Misra, Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Pandey Education Law - Ad hoc appointment of Principal - Section 18, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - Scope - Vacancy of Principal to be filled on ad hoc basis by promoting senior-most qualified teacher of institution - Appointment must be from within institution and in accordance with prescribed qualifications - Held, appointment of a Principal from another institution on officiating basis is alien to statutory scheme and impermissible. Education Service - Ad hoc promotion - Eligibility and seniority - Determination - Senior-most teacher to be given charge unless ineligible - Disputes regarding seniority and qualification to be adjudicated by competent authority - Until such determination, existing arrangement cannot be disturbed arbitrarily. Administrative Law - Natural justice - Violation - Ex parte order - District Inspector of Schools passed order replacing officiating Principal without notice or opportunity - Held, such order violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable - Mere pendency of enquiry or direction for lodging FIR not sufficient to justify adverse ex parte action. Administrative Law - Exercise of power - Malice in law - Order passed ignoring earlier approval of competent authority and pending disputes - Action influenced by extraneous considerations - Held, exercise of power arbitrary and vitiated by malice in law. Education Service - Interim arrangement - Judicial directions - Limits - Court cannot direct appointment of outsider Principal from another institution as interim arrangement - Such direction beyond statutory framework and without jurisdiction. In Result: Special Appeal allowed; order of District Inspector of Schools set aside; impugned directions of Single Judge (to extent of interim arrangement) quashed; directions for determination of seniority and qualification upheld.