Rabiya Begum v. Shabej) Under Sections

1. Heard Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 17.03.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 233 of 2022 (Rabiya Begum Vs. Shabej) Under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women Protection Act against applicant no. 1, Under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no. 2 and Under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 354 & 504 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no. 3, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bijnor, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C., Court No. 2, Bijnor and all consequential proceedings thereon.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2, who is mother of Nadira whose marriage stood solemnized with applicant no.1 herein, wherein the applicant no.2, mother-in-law and applicant no.3 brother-in-law were made accused along with others. It is alleged in the complaint that post-marriage, regular demand of dowry was being made to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, one four-wheeler and gold rings for mother-in-law and Nanad and for the brother-in- laws. On account of non-satisfaction of their demand, the daughter of the complainant used to be administered beating and abuses were also hurled. It is also alleged that the brother-in-law of the daughter of O.P. No.2 who is applicant no.3, used to instigate the other co-accused to demand dowry and when the daughter of O.P. No.2 made a complaint to the O.P. No.2. The applicant no.1 also went to Saudi Arabia for work and threatened them while asking for additional dowry, pursuant whereto an amount of Rs.55,000/- was offered and was given by O.P. No.2 to the in-laws of O.P. No.2. It is also alleged that in the month of March 2022, the daughter of O.P. No.2 was blessed with a daughter, but the applicants were not happy with the same and on 26.03.2022, they directed the daughter of O.P. No.2 to bring Rs.70,000/- and thereafter the said amount to handed over to them. It is also alleged in the complaint that the applicant no.3, who is brother-in-law also exhibited indecent behaviour and gestures and touched the chest of the daughter of O.P. No.2 while attempting to commit bad act, and when the daughter of O.P. No.2 screamed and raised hue and cry and complained the said act of applicant no.3, then the other family member only laughed and on 23.06.2022, the daughter of O.P. No.2 informed the complainant about the said act. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police through phone on 112 number. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that post-recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the applicant no.1 has been summoned on 17.03.2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act read with 3/4 of Muslim Marriage Act and so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, he was summoned under Sections under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicant no.3 was summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 354, 504 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that totally false and frivolous and incorrect allegations have been sought to be leveled. There is no demand of dowry as has been sought to be raised. Less to say about maar-peet. It is also submitted that applicant no.3 being the brother-in-law had never committed any act to outrage the modesty of the daughter of O.P. No.2. They are innocent.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC of the witnesses support the prosecution theory and further there is a medical report showing injuries extended to the daughter of the O.P. No.2.

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

6. There are certain broad parameters, which are involved in testing the issue, as to whether the summoning order suffers from any legal infirmity or not, amongst others one of them is the allegation in the complaint, vis-a-vis the statement under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. Here in the present case, as noticed above there happens to be a clear-cut allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and specifically against applicant no.3under Section 354 of IPC. Specific instances have been given while specifying the date also. The statement of the complaint under Section 200 CrPC supports the prosecution case wherein demand of dowry has been alleged while specifying the date of the amount, which was asked and tendered, coupled with the fact that the applicant no.3 used to commit offences under Section 354 IPC, so much so the statement under Section 202 CrPC of the victim also depicts that pinpointed allegations have been made against the applicant of demand of dowry and the amount which was demanded and paid specific allegations have been leveled under Section 354 IPC against applicant no.3. Moreover, the statement of another witness Sadar Khan also supports the prosecution theory. On top of it, there happens to be medical report showing the injuries extended to the daughter of O.P. No.2, though simple in nature. A bare look of the summoning order itself reveals that the court below while according satisfaction on the basis of the statements of witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint had summoned the applicants after recording prima facie satisfaction. Further in absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error, no interference is needed at the summoning stage when case is triable.

7. Looking into the case from the four-corners of law, this Court does not find it the present case to be a fit case for interference.

8. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 17.03.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 233 of 2022 (Rabiya Begum Vs. Shabej) Under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women Protection Act against applicant no. 1, Under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no. 2 and Under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 354 & 504 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act against applicant no. 3, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bijnor, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C., Court No. 2, Bijnor and all consequential proceedings thereon.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2, who is mother of Nadira whose marriage stood solemnized with applicant no.1 herein, wherein the applicant no.2, mother-in-law and applicant no.3 brother-in-law were made accused along with others. It is alleged in the complaint that post-marriage, regular demand of dowry was being made to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, one four-wheeler and gold rings for mother-in-law and Nanad and for the brother-in- laws. On account of non-satisfaction of their demand, the daughter of the complainant used to be administered beating and abuses were also hurled. It is also alleged that the brother-in-law of the daughter of O.P. No.2 who is applicant no.3, used to instigate the other co-accused to demand dowry and when the daughter of O.P. No.2 made a complaint to the O.P. No.2. The applicant no.1 also went to Saudi Arabia for work and threatened them while asking for additional dowry, pursuant whereto an amount of Rs.55,000/- was offered and was given by O.P. No.2 to the in-laws of O.P. No.2. It is also alleged that in the month of March 2022, the daughter of O.P. No.2 was blessed with a daughter, but the applicants were not happy with the same and on 26.03.2022, they directed the daughter of O.P. No.2 to bring Rs.70,000/- and thereafter the said amount to handed over to them. It is also alleged in the complaint that the applicant no.3, who is brother-in-law also exhibited indecent behaviour and gestures and touched the chest of the daughter of O.P. No.2 while attempting to commit bad act, and when the daughter of O.P. No.2 screamed and raised hue and cry and complained the said act of applicant no.3, then the other family member only laughed and on 23.06.2022, the daughter of O.P. No.2 informed the complainant about the said act. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police through phone on 112 number. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that post-recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the applicant no.1 has been summoned on 17.03.2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act read with 3/4 of Muslim Marriage Act and so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, he was summoned under Sections under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicant no.3 was summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 354, 504 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that totally false and frivolous and incorrect allegations have been sought to be leveled. There is no demand of dowry as has been sought to be raised. Less to say about maar-peet. It is also submitted that applicant no.3 being the brother-in-law had never committed any act to outrage the modesty of the daughter of O.P. No.2. They are innocent.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC of the witnesses support the prosecution theory and further there is a medical report showing injuries extended to the daughter of the O.P. No.2.

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

6. There are certain broad parameters, which are involved in testing the issue, as to whether the summoning order suffers from any legal infirmity or not, amongst others one of them is the allegation in the complaint, vis-a-vis the statement under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. Here in the present case, as noticed above there happens to be a clear-cut allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and specifically against applicant no.3under Section 354 of IPC. Specific instances have been given while specifying the date also. The statement of the complaint under Section 200 CrPC supports the prosecution case wherein demand of dowry has been alleged while specifying the date of the amount, which was asked and tendered, coupled with the fact that the applicant no.3 used to commit offences under Section 354 IPC, so much so the statement under Section 202 CrPC of the victim also depicts that pinpointed allegations have been made against the applicant of demand of dowry and the amount which was demanded and paid specific allegations have been leveled under Section 354 IPC against applicant no.3. Moreover, the statement of another witness Sadar Khan also supports the prosecution theory. On top of it, there happens to be medical report showing the injuries extended to the daughter of O.P. No.2, though simple in nature. A bare look of the summoning order itself reveals that the court below while according satisfaction on the basis of the statements of witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint had summoned the applicants after recording prima facie satisfaction. Further in absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error, no interference is needed at the summoning stage when case is triable.

7. Looking into the case from the four-corners of law, this Court does not find it the present case to be a fit case for interference.

8. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)