# Sachin Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 71
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 14261 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45431
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406 - Punishment for
criminal breach of trust , Section 506 -
Punishment for criminal intimidation ,
Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly
inducing
delivery
of
property
-
no
intention of applicant to cheat at the
inception of the transaction - would
ideally and eminently give rise to a cause
of action for a suit of dissolution of
partnership and rendition of account -
Instead of adopting that course - second
opposite party approached the police -
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigated
unscrupulously
-
filed
a
chargesheet - presents no criminal angle
to it.Para - 12

Applicant running printing press - allegation in
the FIR - asked the informant, opposite party
no.2 to invest in business which would yield
good profit - at some stage, the applicant
turned dishonest - did not refund her money -
applicant said that their partnership cannot
continue and it is better that they part ways -
settlement outside Court. Para -2

HELD:- Settlement arrived at outside Court
reaffirms this Court's faith in the perversion of
the process of Court that has become rampant -
Agreement dated 14.07.2020 is nothing but the
result of an abuse of process of the criminal
court under which one of the parties have
buckled to settle the matter for the fear of the
criminal process . There cannot be a more
brazen abuse of process of the criminal court
than the one presented here.This Court is of
opinion that the impugned proceedings cannot
be permitted to continue.Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E -7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

11 All. Sachin Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
71
the actual prosecution of the offender till
such time he fails to pay the amount, then
the statutory period prescribed begins for
lodgement of complaint. The Parliament
has granted just and proper time to give to
the drawer the opportunity to pay the
amount before he could be prosecuted. The
offence is completed the moment the
cheque is dishonoured. Refer to Dashrath
Rupsingh
Rathod
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

11. The judgment in Shakti Travel
and Tours Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 9
SCC 415, will not apply to the facts of this
case as it is averred in the complaint that
the notice was served which was replied by
the accused and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the issuance of summons is bad in the
eye of law.

12. In the case in hand, the petitioner
herein replied to the notice which goes to
show that the intention of the drawer is clear
that he did not wish to make the payment.
Once this is clarified, should the complainant
wait for the minimum period of 15 days, the
answer would be 'no'.

13. In this case, judgment in N.
Parameswaram Unni Vs. G. Kannan,
(2017) 5 SCC 737 can be relied upon as in
this case it appears that notice was deemed to
have been served to the petitioner and he was
under an obligation to discharge his liability
which he has not done. The only object of
proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is
to avoid unnecessary hardship if the drawer
wants to make payment. Hence, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere with the
well reasoned summoning order passed by
the learned Magistrate.

14. Reason given by the learned
Magistrate is very clear. It is well reasoned
order which was passed on 30.11.2019. For
a period of one year, the petitioner has
chosen not to appear before the learned
Magistrate and has moved this Court now.

15. In view of the above, this petition
is dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- to be
deposited before the Court below. The
petitioner is aware that summons has
already been issued against him and,
therefore, he may choose to appear before
the Court below on or before 15.10.2020
failing which the Court shall be free to take
steps as provided by law.
----------
(2020)11ILR A71
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 14261 of 2020

Sachin Kumar Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406 - Punishment for
criminal breach of trust , Section 506 -
Punishment for criminal intimidation ,
Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly
inducing
delivery
of
property
-
no
intention of applicant to cheat at the
inception of the transaction - would
ideally and eminently give rise to a cause
of action for a suit of dissolution of
partnership and rendition of account -
Instead of adopting that course - second
opposite party approached the police -
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigated
unscrupulously
-
filed
a
chargesheet - presents no criminal angle
to it.Para - 12

Applicant running printing press - allegation in
the FIR - asked the informant, opposite party
no.2 to invest in business which would yield
good profit - at some stage, the applicant
turned dishonest - did not refund her money -
applicant said that their partnership cannot
continue and it is better that they part ways -
settlement outside Court. Para -2

HELD:- Settlement arrived at outside Court
reaffirms this Court's faith in the perversion of
the process of Court that has become rampant -
Agreement dated 14.07.2020 is nothing but the
result of an abuse of process of the criminal
court under which one of the parties have
buckled to settle the matter for the fear of the
criminal process . There cannot be a more
brazen abuse of process of the criminal court
than the one presented here.This Court is of
opinion that the impugned proceedings cannot
be permitted to continue.Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E -7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Rashmi Jain Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2014) 13
SCC 533

2. M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. Vs NEPC India Ltd. &
ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736

3. Kapur Chand Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2014
(3) ACR 2797

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing on
behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K.
Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted
by Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned
A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Admit.

3. Sri S.K. Pal, learned Government
Advocate assisted by Sri Indrajeet Singh
Yadav, learned A.G.A. waives his right to
file a counter affidavit, looking to the
nature of the controversy involved.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that a
compromise has been arrived at between
parties
and
recorded
on
14.07.2020,
engrossed on a general stamp worth Rs.
100/-. It has been notarized. In furtherance
of the said compromise, a compromise
affidavit has been filed before this Court
today, which is unsigned and unsworn. It is
supported by a declaration. A declaration
instead of a sworn affidavit was permitted
when there was a nationwide lockdown.
Now, the nation is abuzz with life but in the
Registry of the Court it appears that it is not
business as usual. The Registrar General is
directed to examine the feasibility of
restoring a suitably modified requirement
of filing sworn affidavits by parties.
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the
present matter is being heard on the status
of papers filed in Court as per practice
current at this time.

5. A perusal of the first information
report, which after some investigation has
culminated into a chargesheet, shows that
the applicant, Sachin Kumar Srivastava is a
businessman engaged in the business of
running a printing press. It is alleged in the
FIR that he asked the informant, opposite
party no.2 to invest in business which
would yield good profit. It is also alleged
that it was represented to complainantopposite party no.2 that the sum of Rs.
22,00,000/- that she was invited to invest
would be returned to her, and in the profit
of 40% that the parties would earn, there
would be sharing on the basis of 50% each.
It is alleged in the FIR that at some stage,
11 All. Sachin Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
73
the applicant turned dishonest and did not
refund her money. It is also alleged that
when the informant demanded her money,
the applicant said that their partnership
cannot continue and it is better that they
part ways. It was also represented to the
informant, as part of this dissolution, that
the applicant would pay the informantopposite party no.2, a sum of Rs. 19,000/-
per mensem and in that manner would
repay the principal sum of money within a
period of three years. It is alleged that two
cheques, mentioned in the FIR, when
presented on 10.05.2018 and 07.06.2018,
were dishonored: one on account of
signatures of the account holder not
tallying, and the other, due to the account
being closed. It is alleged that the
informant contacted the applicant about the
dishonored
cheques
whereupon
the
applicant promised that he would arrange
and pay the money due. It is said that a
period of four months elapsed but to no
avail. There are then certain allegations of a
sharp exchange of words and a threat
extended.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for
the applicant that the FIR and the criminal
prosecution based on it discloses no offence
whatsoever. Still, he submits in tandem
with the learned counsel appearing for the
second opposite party that the parties have
compromised the matter privately, which
they have reduced to writing. It is on that
basis that an affidavit of compromise (with
all its infirmities) above described, has
been brought on record before this Court.
The terms of the compromise recorded
between parties, as these appear from a
perusal of a photostat copy of the
compromise dated 14.07.2020, are as
follows:

सुलहनामा

रिंिू श्र वास्तव पत्न सुि ल कुमार
श्र वास्तव, प्नवास - बसिंत प्बहार कालोन , 10
नम्बर
बोररिंग
थाना-गोरखनाथ,
िनपि
गोरखपुर।

....... रथम पक्ष

 व

सप्चन श्र वास्तव पुत्र रघुनाथ लाल
रो०दृप्िरेस िाप निं०-16 एम०प ० प्बल्कडिंग
गोलघर, थाना कैण्ट, िनपि-गोरखपुर प्नवास
ग्राम-
भम्भौर
नरकटवा
बािार
थाना
कैल्कियरगिंि, िनपि गोरखपुर हाल मुकाम-
रािेन्द्र नगर कालोन , कूरावार रािेन्द्र नगर
पप्िम म०न०-178-िे, थाना गोरखनाथ, िनपि-
गोरखपुर।

......प्ित य पक्ष

1. यह प्क हम रथम पक्ष व प्ित य
पक्ष ने आपस मे प्मलकर एक सिंयुक्त व्यापार
िुरू प्कया था और उस उद्देश्य से हम िोनो
पक्षोिं के मध्य लेन-िेन हुआ था और उस सम्बन्ध
में रथम पक्ष िारा कुछ क पूिंि प्ित य पक्ष के
माध्यम से व्यापार में लगाई गई थ परन्तु प्कन्ह
कारणोिं क विह से सिंयुक्त व्यवसाय आगे नह
बढ़ सका और प्ित य पक्ष के उपर रथम पक्ष
क कुछ िेनिार िेष रह गई।

2. यह प्क उस सिंयुक्त व्यवसाय में
िो िेनिार प्ित य पक्ष क थ उस के प्लए
प्ित य पक्ष ने रथम पक्ष को चेक सिंख्या-
152931 से लगायत चेक सिंख्या- 152940 तक व
474698 से लगायत 474700 तक कुल 13 चेक
प्िया था प्िसमें से कुछ चेक आपस सामन्िस्य
न होने के कारण रयाप्त धनराप्ि न होने के
कारण अनादृत हो गया था।

3. यह प्क चेक अनादृत होने के
कारण रथम पक्ष ने प्िप्तय पक्ष के प्वरूद्ध
परक्राम्य प्लखत अप्धप्नयम क धारा- 138 के
तहत कुल चार पररवाि िाल्कखल प्कया है प्िसमें
पररवाि सिंख्या 4452/18, 1443/19,231/19, व
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2449/19
है
िो
न्यायालय
श्र मान्
ए०स ०िे०एम०- रथम के न्यायालय में लल्कम्बत
है।

4. यह प्क रथम पक्ष िारा प्ित य पक्ष
के प्वरूद्ध एक आपराप्धक मुकिमा अपराध
सिंख्या-
370/19
अ०धारा-406,506,420
भा०ि०प्व० थाना- गोरखनाथ, िनपि- गोरखपुर
में ििज कराया गाय था प्िसमें आरोप- पत्र
न्यायालय में िाल्कखल हो चुका है तथा पत्रावल
न्यायालय ए०स ०िे०एम०-रथम के न्यायालय में
प्वचाराध न है।

5. यह प्क हम िोनोिं पक्षोिं ने प्मत्रोिं,
ररश्तेिारोिं एविं बुिुगों के समझाने के उपरान्त
अपन स्वतिंत्र इच्छा व सहमप्त से आपस में यह
प्नणजय प्लया है प्क आपस सहमप्त िारा आपस
लेन-िेन को समाप्त कर प्लया िाये तथा उस
आधार पर समस्त मुकिमोिं को भ समाप्त करा
प्िया िाये।

6. यह क समझौते के अनुरूप यह
तय हुआ है प्क प्ित य पक्ष, रथम पक्ष को कुल
मु०-13,00,000/- (तेरह लाख रूपये) िेंगे।
इसके अलावा अन्य कोई धनराप्ि या मि नर
प्ित य पक्ष िारा रथम पक्ष को िेय नह होग ।

7. यह प्क समझौते क ितज के
अनुसार प्ित य पक्ष रथम् पक्ष को तत्काल मु०-
5,00,000/- (पािंच लाख रूपये) ड ०ड ०- िारा
िेंगे तथा िेष धनराप्ि मु०-8,00,000/- (आठ
लाख रूपये) िब रथम पक्ष आपराप्धक
मुकिमा मु०अ०सिं०-370/19, थाना गोरखनाथ
को समाप्त करायेंगे तो उस प्िन प्ित य पक्ष
िारा रथम पक्ष को भुगतान प्कया िायेगा।

8. यह प्क चूिंप्क आपराप्धक मु०
370/19 में पत्रावल में प्ित य पक्ष के प्वरूद्ध
एन०ब ०डब्लू० क कायजवाह चल रह है।
इसप्लए िोनो पक्षोिं में यह तय हुआ है प्क रथम
पक्ष िारा मु०- 5,00,000/- (पािंच लाख रूपये)
राप्त करने के उपरान्त प्ित य पक्ष िारा
उपरोक्त मुकिमें को सुलह के आधार पर
समाप्त करने हेतु मानन य उच्च न्यायालय,
इलाहाबाि में याप्चका िायर क िायेग तथा
पत्रावल मध्यस्थता में िब रहत है। उस िौरान
िेष धनराप्ि मु०- 8,00,000/- रूपये का
भुगतान प्ित य पक्ष िारा रथम पक्ष को कर
प्िया िायेगा और रथम पक्ष िारा मुकिमा
समाप्त करने क सहमप्त मध्यस्थता केन्द्र उच्च
न्यायालय इलाहाबाि में कर ि िायेग प्िससे
क उपरोक्त आपराप्धक मुकिमा समाप्त हो
िाये तथा उस समय सारे चेक भ रथम पक्ष
िारा प्ित य पक्ष को वापस कर प्िये िायेंगे और
उसके उपरान्त सम्बल्कन्धत अिालत में लल्कम्बत
चारोिं पररवाि को भ रथम पक्ष िारा वापस ले
प्लया िायेगा।

9. यह प्क समझौते क ितों के
अनुसार समझौते क रप्क्रया के िौरान होने वाले
सभ रकार के खचे क प्िम्मेिार प्ित य पक्ष
क होग ।

10. यह प्क हम रथम पक्ष ने प्ित य
पक्ष से मु०-5,00,000/- का ड ०ड ० िो
इलाहाबाि बैंक सेन्ट एण्ड्रयूि िाखा िारा िार
है। तथा प्िस पर प्िनािंक 07.07.2020 क प्तप्थ
अिंप्कत है। तथा प्िसका नम्बर- 163458 है।
राप्त कर प्लया है। ड ०ड ० क छाया रप्त
सिंलग्नक-1 है तथा उसक छाया रप्त पर िोनोिं
पक्षोिं ने हस्ताक्षर बना प्िये है।

11. यह प्क उपरोक्त सुलहनामा हम
िोनोिं पक्षोिं िारा अपन स्वतिंत्र इच्छा व सहमप्त से
प्बना प्कस िब्र व िबाव के समक्ष गवाहान
प्लख कर तसि क करा प्िया ताप्क वक्त
िरूरत पर काम आवे।

प्िनािंक-14/7/2020

हस्ताक्षर रथम पक्ष

हस्ताक्षर प्ित य पक्ष

गवाहान: Sd. Illegible

7. Though, the learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that coercive processes
before the Magistrate may be ordered to
11 All. Sachin Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
75
stay for some time till the terms of
compromise embodied, are implemented
and liabilities of the parties discharged, this
Court is not minded to lend the process of
criminal court to abuse by parties out to
recover claims that are essentially based on
business transactions, giving rise to civil
liabilities. This Court cannot help but
notice the ravaging trend of abuse of
process
of
criminal
law
to
recover
essentially civil claims and to settle
disputes, that rightfully ought to go to the
Civil Court. Much of this practice is
contributed to by the time consuming
process involved in the Civil Courts
deciding actions.

8. This Court must also remark that
the delays in Civil Courts are largely on
account of persistent strikes by Members of
the Civil Bar that are succumbed to by the
Presiding Officers, leading to frequent
adjournments of civil causes. This Court is
aware of the fact that the processes of the
Civil Court do take time, which they ought
not. The civil process is designed to move
at a fast pace, which unfortunately for the
present remains unrealized. This, however,
does not mean that civil claims can be
permitted to be converted into criminal
complaints and prosecutions, which they
are not.

9. In this connection, reference may
be made to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Rashmi Jain vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2014) 13 SCC 533.
It has been held in Rashmi Jain:

"6. .......... In our opinion, the
aforesaid averment has been made only to foist
criminal liability on the appellant by converting
a purely civil dispute into criminal act, alleged
to have been committed by the appellant. The
allegations are absurd and outlandish on the
face of it; firstly, the appellant is a lady, a
widow, who was not accompanied by anybody
else at the time of the alleged occurrence;
secondly, she, though being a resident of Delhi,
misbehaved with number of high and mighty
parties with whom she had earlier transacted
business at Moradabad. In our opinion, these
are allegations which on the face of it, cannot be
taken seriously by any reasonable person. The
High Court, in our opinion, has committed
jurisdictional error in dismissing the criminal
petition filed by the appellant on the ground that
it involves disputed questions of fact, which can
only be gone into by the trial court."

10. Again in M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. v.
NEPC India Ltd. And others, (2006) 6 SCC
736, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
frowned upon civil causes being converted into
cases alleging criminal liability and held:

"13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect
the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families.
There
is
also
an
impression that if a person could somehow
be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there
is
a
likelihood
of
imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed:
(SCC p. 643, para 8)

"It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of a civil nature, has been
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High
Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under
this section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

14.
While
no
one
with
a
legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates
or persists with a prosecution, being fully
aware that the criminal proceedings are
unwarranted and his remedy lies only in
civil
law,
should
himself
be
made
accountable,
at
the
end
of
such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step that
can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment
of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under Section 250 CrPC more
frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part
of the complainant. Be that as it may."

11. Reliance may also be placed on a
decision of this Court in Kapur Chand
Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014
(3) ACR 2797, where with reference to a
prosecution under Section 406 IPC in the
background of an issue between parties
about a part of the price of goods supplied,
that remain unpaid by the accused to the
complainant, it was held by Vinod Prasad,
J.:

"10. On an over all analysis it
emerges that the complaint does not
discloses commission of any offence
whatsoever against the applicant and
whatever has been alleged discloses only a
civil liability and applicant's prosecution is
wholly undesirable and illegal and it is
nothing but his harassment and, therefore,
is liable to be quashed."

12. The present case is undisputedly a
commercial transaction between parties,
involving partnership and its dissolution
under the law. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the applicant had an intention
to cheat at the inception of the transaction.
It is just that the venture contemplated by
parties did not take off and turn profitable
as envisaged. Ex facie there is nothing
shown by the police that may indicate that
the applicant ever intended to cheat
opposite party no.2. It would ideally and
eminently give rise to a cause of action for
a suit of dissolution of partnership and
rendition of accounts. Instead of adopting
that course, the second opposite party has
approached the police, who again very
unscrupulously have investigated and filed
a chargesheet in the matter, which indeed
presents no criminal angle to it. The
settlement that has been arrived at outside
Court reaffirms this Court's faith in the
perversion of the process of Court that has
become rampant. The agreement dated
14.07.2020 is nothing but the result of an
abuse of process of the criminal court under
which one of the parties have buckled to
settle the matter for the fear of the criminal
process. There cannot be a more brazen
abuse of process of the criminal court than
the one presented here. This Court is of
opinion that the impugned proceedings
cannot be permitted to continue.

13. In the result this application
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
charge sheet No. 357 of 2018, dated
08.12.2018 and the entire proceedings of
11 All. Smt. Sarvesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
77
Case No. 370 of 2019, State vs. Sachin
Kumar Srivastava (arising out of Case
Crime No. 412 of 2018) under Section
406,506,420
I.P.C.,
P.S.
Gorakhnath,
District Gorakhpur pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Gorakhpur are hereby quashed. The
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Gorakhpur
shall
ensure
that
an
endorsement is made in the G.D. of the
police
station
concerned
that
the
proceedings of this case have been
quashed under orders of this Court.

14. It will be open to the second
Opposite Party to recover her dues in
accordance with law, in the manner she
may be advised.

15. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to the Registrar General for
necessary action.

16. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I,
Gorakhpur
through
the
District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur for
compliance by the Office.
----------
(2020)11ILR A77
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 14600 of 2020

Smt. Sarvesh Verma & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal law - The Indian Penal Code -
Section 498A - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12
- Husband or relative of husband of a
women subjecting her to cruelty - -
Application of magistrate , Section18 -
Protection orders, Section 23 - power to
grant interim and ex parte orders - U.P.
Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956
- Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing
Declaration and the Platform for Action
(1995) - domestic violence is undoubtedly
a human rights issue - State parties
should act to protect women against
violence of any kind, especially that
occurring within the family .Para - 7

Accusation is of domestic violence by mother-inlaw and father-in-law - against widowed lady
with her two minor daughters - Contention said
in the application is to be adjudged by the
Magistrate and for that an opportunity of
adducing evidence is always needed. Para - 8

HELD:- This court may never give direction for
a decision without giving opportunity of hearing
or having evidence. Hence there is no abuse of
process of law.Para - 8

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E -7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Ram Singh Tomar & ors. Vs Smt. Bhoori Bai
and others, 2017 Cr.L.J. 3455,

2. S. R. Batra & ors. Vs Taruna Batra, (2007) 3
SCC 169,

3. Vimlaben Ajeet Bhai Patel Vs Vatsalben Ashok
Bhai Patel, (2004) SCC 469

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. representing
the State. Perused the records.