Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another

The facts of the case are as under:

It is further alleged that the petitioner's brothers Ajay Pratap Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh were furious because the petitioner underwent an inter-caste marriage, and hence they went to the petitioner's husband's paternal residence and vehemently beat up her husband's mother and uncle, threw the luggage, furniture, utensils, etc. from the house and locked it with their lock. One brother of the petitioner's husband was allegedly locked in a room by the petitioner's brothers for four or five days without meals and water. The petitioner's brothers also allegedly cut away the harvest crops of the agricultural field of the petitioner's husband and sold it, and they also took forcible possession of the field. They also lodged a false police report alleging kidnapping of the petitioner against her husband and his relatives at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, due to which the sisters of the petitioner's husband, and the husband of one of the sisters, were arrested and detained in Lucknow jail. The petitioner's brothers also illegally took possession of the shop of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband has a shop at Badan Singh Market, Rangpuri in the name of Gupta Helmet Shop whose possession was forcibly taken over by her brothers.

It is alleged that the petitioner's husband and relatives have been falsely framed by her brothers Shashi Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh who were furious because of the inter-caste marriage of the petitioner with Bramha Nand Gupta. Mamta Gupta, Rakesh Gupta and Sangita Gupta were arrested on 17.12.2000, whereas Kallu Gupta was arrested on 02.12.2000. It is alleged that the three relatives of the petitioner's husband were not granted bail for a long time and their lives got ruined though there was no case against them that they instigated the petitioner to get married to Bramha Nand Gupta. It is also alleged that the petitioner ran from pillar to post to save her husband and relatives from harassment and she then approached the Rajasthan Women Commission, Jaipur, as she was staying in Jaipur almost in hiding apprehending danger to her and her husband's life. The Commission recorded her statement on 13.3.2001 and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (City), Lucknow for necessary action. The President of the Rajasthan State Women Commission also wrote a letter to the National Human Rights Commission on 13.3.2001 requesting the Commission and the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to intervene in the matter.

The Fast Track Court, Lucknow before whom the case was pending issued non-bailable warrants against all the four accused, and against the order of the Fast Track Court, the accused filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which was registered as Crl. Misc. No. 520/2003. The High Court directed the accused to appear before the Sessions Judge who would himself scrutinize whether the accused committed any offence or not. The matter is still pending.

The petitioner alleged that she cannot visit Lucknow as she apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her husband and small child. She has further alleged that her brothers have assaulted, humiliated and irreparably harmed the entire family members of her husband Bramha Nand Gupta and their properties, and even the remote relatives were not spared and were threatened to be killed. Their properties including the house and agricultural lands and shops were forcibly taken over by the brothers of the petitioner and the lives of the petitioner and her husband are in constant danger as her brothers have been threatening them.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 1201/2001 titled State of U.P. vs. Sangita Gupta & Ors. arising out of FIR No. 336/2000 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow are quashed. The warrants against the accused are also quashed. The police at all the concerned places should ensure that neither the petitioner nor her husband nor any relatives of the petitioner's husband are harassed or threatened nor any acts of violence are committed against them. If anybody is found doing so, he should be proceeded against sternly in accordance with law, by the authorities concerned.

We further direct that in view of the allegations in the petition (set out above) criminal proceedings shall be instituted forthwith by the concerned authorities against the petitioner's brothers and others involved in accordance with law. Petition allowed.