HC directive on challenging summon of other state | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 13, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC directive on challenging summon of other state

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has held that a petition, challenging a summoning order in any criminal case not connected with UP, is not maintainable before this court. Such cases should be challenged in the high court of the state where summoning order was issued, the court said.

india Updated: Nov 13, 2006 00:39 IST

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has held that a petition, challenging a summoning order in any criminal case not connected with UP, is not maintainable before this court. Such cases should be challenged in the high court of the state where summoning order was issued, the court said.

The facts, as alleged in a writ petition filed before the court, were that the petitioners were being prosecuted under sections 498A (harassing a women for dowry), 506 and 114 of the Indian Panel Code and under section 3/7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the petition, petitioner Sunil was married to Bharti Prajapati, the complainant, at Etawah, UP. But she refused to live as his wife saying that she was married against her wishes. Subsequently, the couple decided to separate and the civil Judge, junior division, Etawah, allowed the judicial separation.
Thereafter, she went to her father’s house in Ahmedabad. She filed a complaint of dowry harassment before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad.

She also filed a complaint of dowry harassment before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, against the petitioners. In the complaint, she alleged that the petitioners had forcefully obtained her signature for separation.

They had also taken her to her father’s house in Ahmedabad, she alleged.
In the petition, she also stated that her family members were threatened with dire consequences if their demands were not fulfilled.

In pursuance of this complaint, the petitioners were asked by the metropolitan magistrate of Ahmedabad to appear in person. The petitioners filed the present writ petition (no- 5070 of 2005) challenging the summon. His contention was  that the case is false and concocted and that since the marriage was held at Etawah, UP, therefore the Allahabad High Court could grant the relief prayed for.
The complaint can be quashed and the summon order may not be implemented.
Appearing on behalf of the state, Additional Government  Advocate, Neeraj Kanta Verma submitted that if the petitioner wanted to challenge any order of the metropolitan magistrate, Ahmedabad, he should do so before the Gujrat High Court.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, a Division Bench comprising Justice Amitava Lala and Justice RN Mishra dismissed the writ petition.