High Court

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer.

2. This is an application u/s 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 u/s 498A, 323 of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act in complaint case no. 330/2019 Rashmi @ Laxmi Vs. Mohit Yadav @ Monu and others Police Station Bharthana District Etawah

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 who happens to be the wife of the deceased son of applicant Mohit Yadav under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. no.2 solemnized with Mohit Yadav (since deceased), who happens to be the son of applicant no.1, brother of applicant no.2 and applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 happen to be the Jethani, Nanad and Nandoi of O.P. No.2. However, allegation is that though in the marriage so solemnized on 09.02.2018, the father of O.P. No.2 had spent about Rs.10,00,000/- and also offered gifts worth Rs. 3 lacs, but additional demand was being raised by the applicants herein and on non-fulfillment of their desire, the O.P. No.2 was subjected to beating, maltreatment and sarcastic remarks. Further threatening was also made that in case O.P. No.2 do not fulfill the demand, then the deceased son would be married to another woman. Allegation was also being leveled that on 09.07.2018 at 05:00 in the evening, the applicants herein had beaten O.P. No.2 and pushed her from roof and O.P. No.2 fell on the floor and her spinal cord got fractured. On information being given to parents of O.P. No.2, she was taken to P.G.I. Saifai and thereafter treated in a hospital in Agra. She was hospitalized from 09.07.2018 to 16.07.2018 and was treated there and on 16.07,2018, O.P. No.2 was discharged and she went to her maternal house and a panchayat was convened, wherein the applicants demanded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and a car and in case, the same is not offered, the O.P. No.2 would not be provided entry in the house. Even on 21.06.2019, a panchayat was again held, but the applicants were adamant for fulfillment of their desires. Further her stridhan had also been snatched and a complaint was made to the S.S.P. by registered post. Since nothing was done, the complaint was lodged on 15.07.2019. Thereafter on 17.11.2022, the applicants were summoned under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that an FIR came to be lodged by applicant no.2, who is Jeth before the Police Station - Basrar, Etawah being FIR No.0050 on 28.06.2024 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 306 and 506 IPC against O.P. No.2 and other family members of O.P. No.2 with an allegation that the O.P. No.2 has left the matrimonial house since July 2018 and despite constant request, she did not come back and on account whereof, the husband of O.P. No.2 committed suicide. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the totally false and frivolous allegations have been sought to be leveled which have no basis at all as the entire allegations tantamount to creating a situation, whereby pressure be exerted upon the applicants faction. It is also submitted that the applicants are innocent and no dowry whatsoever was demanded at any stage. It is thus prayed that the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 be set aside and the proceedings be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicants have approached this Court in the year 2025 questioning the summoning order dated 17.11.2022. The allegations in the complaint as well as the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC support the prosecution theory and thus, in the absence of any plausible explanation, this Court may not interfere at this stage.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, pursuant whereto on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the witnesses, the applicants have been summoned on 17.11.2022.

7. On a specific query being raised to learned counsel for the applicants regarding the cause of enormous delay in approaching this Court against the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 in the year 2025, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 in Complaint Case No. 330 of 2019 was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the deceased husband while filing Criminal Revision No.332 of 2023, Mohit Yadav vs. State of U.P., which came to be dismissed on 19.11.2024. However, the applicants for the reasons beyond their control and comprehension could not challenge the same at an appropriate time. As a matter of fact, the complaint alleges offences stated to have been committed by the applicants upon the O.P. No.2 under the penal sections. There are pinpointed allegations against the applicants and further the said allegations also stand supported by the prosecution witnesses, namely of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC, one Anand Kumar under Section 202 followed by Jaya Devi under Section 202 of CrPC. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC reveals that there is no inconsistency or variance vis- a-vis the allegations contained in the complaint. This Court at the stage of summoning is not required to delve into factual issues, but once there happens to be conformity and consonance of the statements vis-a-vis the complaint, then the courts are reluctant in interfering at the summoning stage. Apart from the same, the arguments sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint itself is a counter-blast, as it has been lodged just in order to exert pressure by way of retaliation is concerned, the same is not convincible, particularly when the complaint stood lodged on 15.07.2019 and the applicants were summoned on 17.11.2022, whereas the FIR came to be lodged by applicant no.2 on 28.06.2024 under Sections 120B, 306 and 506 IPC, regarding committing of suicide by husband of O.P. No.2 on 23.06.2024. Whatever might be they are the matter of defences, which cannot be gone into at this stage.

8. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present proceeding at the stage of summoning.

9. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be approaching the court below while filing an application seeking enlargement on bail. Thus a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in accordance with law.

10. Indeed, it goes without saying that once an appropriate application seeking enlargement on bail is preferred, thus it would be considered strictly as per the law of the land.

11. In view of above observations, the application is disposed of.

12. The order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2023, Mohit Yadav vs. State of U.P. filed today is kept on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer.

2. This is an application u/s 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 u/s 498A, 323 of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act in complaint case no. 330/2019 Rashmi @ Laxmi Vs. Mohit Yadav @ Monu and others Police Station Bharthana District Etawah

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 who happens to be the wife of the deceased son of applicant Mohit Yadav under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. no.2 solemnized with Mohit Yadav (since deceased), who happens to be the son of applicant no.1, brother of applicant no.2 and applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 happen to be the Jethani, Nanad and Nandoi of O.P. No.2. However, allegation is that though in the marriage so solemnized on 09.02.2018, the father of O.P. No.2 had spent about Rs.10,00,000/- and also offered gifts worth Rs. 3 lacs, but additional demand was being raised by the applicants herein and on non-fulfillment of their desire, the O.P. No.2 was subjected to beating, maltreatment and sarcastic remarks. Further threatening was also made that in case O.P. No.2 do not fulfill the demand, then the deceased son would be married to another woman. Allegation was also being leveled that on 09.07.2018 at 05:00 in the evening, the applicants herein had beaten O.P. No.2 and pushed her from roof and O.P. No.2 fell on the floor and her spinal cord got fractured. On information being given to parents of O.P. No.2, she was taken to P.G.I. Saifai and thereafter treated in a hospital in Agra. She was hospitalized from 09.07.2018 to 16.07.2018 and was treated there and on 16.07,2018, O.P. No.2 was discharged and she went to her maternal house and a panchayat was convened, wherein the applicants demanded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and a car and in case, the same is not offered, the O.P. No.2 would not be provided entry in the house. Even on 21.06.2019, a panchayat was again held, but the applicants were adamant for fulfillment of their desires. Further her stridhan had also been snatched and a complaint was made to the S.S.P. by registered post. Since nothing was done, the complaint was lodged on 15.07.2019. Thereafter on 17.11.2022, the applicants were summoned under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that an FIR came to be lodged by applicant no.2, who is Jeth before the Police Station - Basrar, Etawah being FIR No.0050 on 28.06.2024 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 306 and 506 IPC against O.P. No.2 and other family members of O.P. No.2 with an allegation that the O.P. No.2 has left the matrimonial house since July 2018 and despite constant request, she did not come back and on account whereof, the husband of O.P. No.2 committed suicide. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the totally false and frivolous allegations have been sought to be leveled which have no basis at all as the entire allegations tantamount to creating a situation, whereby pressure be exerted upon the applicants faction. It is also submitted that the applicants are innocent and no dowry whatsoever was demanded at any stage. It is thus prayed that the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 be set aside and the proceedings be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicants have approached this Court in the year 2025 questioning the summoning order dated 17.11.2022. The allegations in the complaint as well as the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC support the prosecution theory and thus, in the absence of any plausible explanation, this Court may not interfere at this stage.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, pursuant whereto on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the witnesses, the applicants have been summoned on 17.11.2022.

7. On a specific query being raised to learned counsel for the applicants regarding the cause of enormous delay in approaching this Court against the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 in the year 2025, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 in Complaint Case No. 330 of 2019 was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the deceased husband while filing Criminal Revision No.332 of 2023, Mohit Yadav vs. State of U.P., which came to be dismissed on 19.11.2024. However, the applicants for the reasons beyond their control and comprehension could not challenge the same at an appropriate time. As a matter of fact, the complaint alleges offences stated to have been committed by the applicants upon the O.P. No.2 under the penal sections. There are pinpointed allegations against the applicants and further the said allegations also stand supported by the prosecution witnesses, namely of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC, one Anand Kumar under Section 202 followed by Jaya Devi under Section 202 of CrPC. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC reveals that there is no inconsistency or variance vis- a-vis the allegations contained in the complaint. This Court at the stage of summoning is not required to delve into factual issues, but once there happens to be conformity and consonance of the statements vis-a-vis the complaint, then the courts are reluctant in interfering at the summoning stage. Apart from the same, the arguments sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint itself is a counter-blast, as it has been lodged just in order to exert pressure by way of retaliation is concerned, the same is not convincible, particularly when the complaint stood lodged on 15.07.2019 and the applicants were summoned on 17.11.2022, whereas the FIR came to be lodged by applicant no.2 on 28.06.2024 under Sections 120B, 306 and 506 IPC, regarding committing of suicide by husband of O.P. No.2 on 23.06.2024. Whatever might be they are the matter of defences, which cannot be gone into at this stage.

8. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present proceeding at the stage of summoning.

9. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be approaching the court below while filing an application seeking enlargement on bail. Thus a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in accordance with law.

10. Indeed, it goes without saying that once an appropriate application seeking enlargement on bail is preferred, thus it would be considered strictly as per the law of the land.

11. In view of above observations, the application is disposed of.

12. The order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2023, Mohit Yadav vs. State of U.P. filed today is kept on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)