SAURAV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dtd. 2/5/2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.2953 of 2014, under Sec. 406 I.P.C., Police Station - Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant criminal complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is a counter blast to the Application under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, filed by applicant no.1 herein as the opposite party no.2 had left the company of applicant no.1 without any reasonable cause, therefore, the instant complaint has been filed on false and fabricated facts. The opposite no.2 had sent a notice on 2/7/2017 and asked the applicants to return the articles. The said legal notice was duly replied by applicant no.1 and it was stated that no such articles as has been mentioned in the list annexed with the notice, have ever been received by the applicants, therefore, there is no question of returning the same. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that no dowry was given by opposite party no.2 or her family members as the marriage between the parties has taken place through their interaction on the Facebook etc. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that as per Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., since the applicants herein were residing outside the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate then the enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and no such enquiry has been conducted. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the impugned summoning order dtd. 2/5/2015 is illegal, which has been passed without conducting any enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the paragraph no.34 of the judgment of Apex Court in Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and others : AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 1025, which reads as follows: