[ad_1]
Allahabad High Court
Taranuum Jahan @ Rubi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149224 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6994 of 2019 In Chamber HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Taranuum Jahan @ Rubi- petitioner and respondent no. 2 appearing in person.
2. By means of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-
“To set aside the impugned summoning order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.8 Bareilly passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 200 of 2018- (M. U. Rahaman Vs. Soni @ Momina Khan & Ors.) under section 379, 418, 452, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Baradari, District- Bareilly and judgment and order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 4/ Special Judge Essential Commodities Act, Bareilly passed Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2019 (CNR No. UPBR 01.009667-2019).”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized according to Muslim rites and rituals on 28.2.2016 in district Bareilly. The petitioner no 2 is sister of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 is mother of petitioner no. 1. After sometime of marriage, matrimonial discord occurred between the spouse and they parted their ways. Both parties have filed criminal complaint and FIR against each other when their relations become sour. Present case relates to criminal complaint no. 200 of 2018 which was filed by respondent no. 2 in the court of ACJM, Bareilly; complaint bears dated 18.10.2017, its earlier number was Complaint Case no. 2517 of 2017 in which complainant has averred that he married with opposite party no. 3, Smt. Tarrannum Jahan, on 28.12.2016. The respondent no. 3 had got a marriage advertisement published in Dainik Jagran daily newspaper ‘Shahnai page’ vide advertisement no. 23380(d) dated 6.12.2015 but particular of opposite party in the advertisement was found false whereas at the time of settlement of marriage, opposite party had assured about truthfulness of fact mentioned in the advertisement if he was apprised of real facts regarding respondent no. 3 he would never have tied nuptial knot with her. The respondent no. 3 used to engage in long whatsapp and messages chats with a number of young persons and she has many male friends which annoyed the complainant; she was patient of diabetic but she concealed this fact to him; he got her visited and treated by many doctors for conception of child but she failed to conceive; relationship between the husband and wife got sour in course of time and she left his home on 4.8.2017 and shifted to her parental home; she is a quarrelsome lady and even she would engage in marpeet with her brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) regarding which a report was registered at P.S. Quila, Bareilly on 4.8.2017. On 28.8.2017 at around 6:30 PM when he was alone in his house, the opposite party no. 2 and 3 accompanied by two unknown persons, barged in his house with intention to commit robbery and forcefully took away her entire valuable ornaments, clothes and Rs. 20,000/- cash and one gold ring, two watches from the wardrobe of complainant under threat of implicating him in some false case and even she took academic and property papers of the complainant which were entrusted by him on reposing trust on her.
4. When the complainant raised protest, opposite party became violent; this incident was witnessed by witnesses Bashir Ahmad, Dilshad, Babbu; he filed report at P.S. Baradari and also informed the incident through registered post to SSP, Bareilly on 26.9.2017 but no action was taken.
5. The complainant examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. in support of complaint version and his witnesses Babbu, Dr. Neetu Sharma, Vashir Ahmad and Dilshad under section 202 Cr.P.C. The initial grievance of the complainant is that in the marriage advertisement, the complainant has shown her age as 32 years whereas after the marriage when he went through her academic documents, her date of birth was found to be 4.4.1973 and accordingly she was of 42 years 08 months of age at the time of marriage and thus she had shown her age around 10 years less in the marriage advertisement and thus at initial stage, fraud was played on him by opposite party. The witnesses have stated that complainant is an advocate practising in Bareilly; witness Dilshad is resident of mohalla of the complainant, Washir Ahmad has shown that he is next door neighbour of the complainant; Dr. Neetu Sharma stated that she is family friend; she stated that there is close relationship between her family and Mujeeb Ur Rahman, whom, she treats as brother; she had negotiated with the complainant on seeing with marriage advertisement to enter into marriage with Tarannum Jahan. The witnesses Babbu, Dilshad and Washir, have shown themselves as eye witness account of incident dated 28.8.2017.
6. Learned trial court after considering the submission of learned counsel for the complainant and evidence on record, had dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. on 10.5.2018 with finding that opposite party, Tarannum Jahan, had lodged FIR against the complainant under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section of D.P. Act, in which, charge-sheet has been filed on 21.1.2018. A report has been received from the police station regarding incident dated 28.8.2017 that relationship between spouse was tensed due to non conception of child by opposite party- Tarannum Jahan; this complaint has been filed with a view to exert pressure on her.
7. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 10.5.2018, the complainant had filed Criminal Revision no. 229 of 2018, which was allowed on 15.3.2019 and the matter was remitted to Magistrate concerned for decision afresh. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 14.5.2019 summoned the opposite party no. 1 to 3 to face trial under section 379, 418, 452, 506 IPC; the opposite party- Tarannum Jahan and 02 others had filed criminal revision before the court of session which was registered as Criminal Revision no. 391 of 2019, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2019 and summoning order passed by the trial court was affirmed.
8. The present petition has been filed by the opposite parties in complaint case with prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 14.5.2019 as well as order of revisional court dated 29.8.2019 by which summoning order has been affirmed.
9. The petitioner No. 1, in person, submitted that initially complaint was dismissed by learned trial court vide order dated 10.5.2018 but subsequently the trial court has summoned the petitioners after judgement of revisional court dated 15.3.2019. The petitioner no. 1 is victim of matrimonial cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to her by respondent no. 2; her husband, Mujeeb Ur Rahman, had lodged FIR on 22.12.2017 with false averment against her and her sister Momina vide Case Crime No. 1002 of 2017 under sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 384 IPC regarding incident dated 22.12.2017, in which, charge-sheet was filed against her and co-accused; the petitioners assailed said criminal proceedings and charge-sheet in Application u/s 482 No. 24441 of 2018 before this Court and said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2023 and criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1002 of 2017 were quashed. She next submitted that the petitioner no. 1 lodged FIR vide Case Crime no. 1151 of 2017, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly, in which, charge-sheet was filed against her husband and sister-in-law Imrana on 21.1.2018. However, charge-sheet in that case was assailed by respondent no. 2 by way of an Application u/s 482 No. 14736 of 2018, which was allowed and charge-sheet and criminal proceedings in that case were quashed by order dated 23.2.2023 passed by this Court. Thus, complainant had lodged FIR against petitioner no. 1 and her sister on false facts prior to filing of present complaint was also quashed by this Court. Present complaint is also filed with false averment only to exert undue pressure on the petitioners.
10. The petitioner no. 1 had lodged another FIR against respondent no. 2 vide Case Crime no. 467 of 2017 on 15.12.2017, under sections 498A, 506 IPC and section of D.P. Act, P.S. Quila, Bareilly in which final report was filed on the ground that on same fact, an FIR has been lodged at P.S. Baradari vide Case Crime no. 1151 of 2017 at the instance of the informant. On consent of petitioner no. 1, said final report was accepted by the trial court vide order dated 11.7.2019. In Criminal Revision no. 229 of 2018, which was filed by respondent no. 2 against dismissal of complaint by the trial court, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and learned Additional Session Judge has allowed criminal revision vide order dated 15.3.2019. Learned Magistrate has passed summoning order against the revisionists after remand of the case by order of revisional court without application of mind and learned Additional session Judge has dismissed her revision against the said summoning order in mechanical manner without considering inherent improbabilities in said summoning order; the respondent no. 2 has been harassing the petitioners from long time due to matrimonial discord and has lodged false cases against them without any logical foundation and with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance; learned court below has failed to consider this fact that the petitioner no. 1 is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2 and no question of theft or house trespass arises in such a case.
11. Per contra, respondent no. 2, in person, submitted that he has been cheated by the petitioners from very beginning in marriage advertisement; false age of the petitioner no. 1 was shown alongwith other false facts; if he was informed that petitioner no. 1 is 42 years of age, he would never have given consent of marriage. The petitioner no. 1 has been treating him with cruelty and high-handedness; he tried his best to save the relationship and spent huge sum of money for treatment of her various ailments, nevertheless she deserted him and he had to give her divorce/ Talaq-e-Ahsan on 26.8.2017 in proper form in three succession within a period of 90 days and now divorce has been completed between them. He also filed Fatwa of Kaji in Criminal Revision no. 1146 of 2022. At the stage of summoning, the trial court is not expected to shift the weight the evidence adduced at the stage of sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. by the complainant and his witnesses and prima facie case has to be seen to determine the question as to whether process has to be issued against the proposed accused or not.
12. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent no. 2, being complainant, has made out strong prima facie case for said charge against the petitioners on the basis of his sworn testimony under section 200 Cr.P.C. and testimony of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C.; there is nothing in their statement to disbelieve them; if he goes through the complaint version there is inconsistency; on the one hand, the complainant has stated that opposite parties who are his wife, mother-in-law and sister-in-law have trespassed into his house on 28.8.2017 by keeping him under threats of false implication and physical assault took away ornaments, documents and valuable of the petitioner no. 1 and also forcefully taken away the documents of complainant, which was entrusted to petitioner no. 1 being his wife whereas he has stated in the complaint that his wife Tarannum Jahan was residing separately from him since 4.8.2017.
13. It is also noticeable that the petitioner no. 1 has lodged FIR against the respondent no. 2 vide Case Crime no. 952 of 2019 under section 477 IPC with averment that her documents are detained by the accused due to which she is suffering much difficulty and same be handed over to her.
14. Having heard the parties at length it appears that bone of contention between the parties is matrimonial discord as according to respondent no. 2, petitioner no. 1 was aged around 42 years at the time of marriage whereas in marriage advertisement, her age was shown as 32 years; she was suffering from some ailments and despite much medical consultation and treatment, she could not conceive. Both parties have levelled wild allegation against each other in their FIR/ complaint lodged against each other. Proceedings arising out of FIR lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1, under sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 384 IPC, have already been set aside by this Court together with charge-sheet filed in FIR lodged at the instance of petitioner no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 vide Case Crime no. 1151 of 2017 under sections 498-A, 325, 504, 506 IPC vide order of this Court dated 23.2.2023. The allegations are made in the present complaint against the petitioners, who are his wife (although divorce has been allegedly effected between them) elderly mother-in-law and sister-in-law with improbable allegations.
15. It is quite unnatural that these three ladies would barge into the house of complainant accompanied by two unknown persons and ransacked his house and took away valuable and documents from the place of respondent no. 2, who is a practicing lawyer. This complaint appears to be an outcome of matrimonial discord between the spouse, driven by which, they have instituted criminal cases against each other to counterblast the case of prosecution lodged against them by other side. Exaggerated and inherently improbable allegation having been levelled against the petitioners.
16. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of case, complaint version lacks truthfulness of its contents. Learned courts below have failed to consider these underlying facts in the case and swayed by the facts narrated in the complaint and statement of complainant and witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. on their face value; the witnesses of the incident, are neighbourers and locality of the complainant; one of the witnesses, Dr. Neetu is not an eye witness; neither the complaint version nor evidence of witnesses in support of incident dated 28.12.2017 in the complaint, inspire confidence and appeal to reason as far as complaint version is concerned. The said complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore, impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate and revisional court are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 11 SCC 465 wherein a criminal appeal against issuance of process in a murder case, Hon’ble Court has observed as under:
“68. As we have seen, sub-section (1) of Section 204 CrPC provides that the Magistrate shall issue the process (summons or warrant) if in his opinion there was sufficient ground for proceeding and therefore so long as there are materials to support the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the persons to whom the processes have been issued, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power will not interfere with the same only because it forms a different opinion on the same materials.”
18. The benefit of above aforesaid judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court may not be extended to the respondent. The present case had its genesis in matrimonial discord between spouse whereas in the case before Hon’ble Supreme court a cold blooded murder of daughter of the appellant and a domestic help of the family happened.
19. The impugned orders passed by learned courts below are set aside. The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 200 of 2018 pending in the court of ACJM, Court no. 8 Barielly are hereby quashed.
20. The petition stands allowed.
August 27, 2025
Dhirendra/
[ad_2]
Source link