High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Applicant :- Sripal And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kulveer Singh Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the either of the parties. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State-respondents.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 23-06-2014 in case crime no. 174 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Deoband, district Saharanpur.
3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. The marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 on 11.07.2013. Due to matrimonial issues, opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against her husband and in-laws on 22.03.2014. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that opposite party no. 2 was subjected to various forms of cruelty by the accused persons due to non- fulfilment of their demand for additional dowry. However, apart from her husband (applicant no. 1), opposite party no. 2 has also implicated Bijendra (brother-in-law), Jeetpal (father-in-law), Preetam (uncle), and Smt. Kamlesh (mother-in-law). After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on 23.06.2014, and thereafter, cognizance was taken. The charge-sheet and entire proceedings have been challenged through this application.
4. It is pleaded by the applicants that the F.I.R. has been falsely instituted by opposite party no. 2 with an oblique motive to harass not only her husband (applicant no. 1) but also his family members, who have no direct involvement in the matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the family members, and the allegations levelled against them are vague, general, and omnibus in nature. It is contended that continuation of proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
5. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756, Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another; 2025 SCC Online SC 884, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.
Applicant :- Sripal And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kulveer Singh Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the either of the parties. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State-respondents.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 23-06-2014 in case crime no. 174 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Deoband, district Saharanpur.
3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. The marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 on 11.07.2013. Due to matrimonial issues, opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against her husband and in-laws on 22.03.2014. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that opposite party no. 2 was subjected to various forms of cruelty by the accused persons due to non- fulfilment of their demand for additional dowry. However, apart from her husband (applicant no. 1), opposite party no. 2 has also implicated Bijendra (brother-in-law), Jeetpal (father-in-law), Preetam (uncle), and Smt. Kamlesh (mother-in-law). After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on 23.06.2014, and thereafter, cognizance was taken. The charge-sheet and entire proceedings have been challenged through this application.
4. It is pleaded by the applicants that the F.I.R. has been falsely instituted by opposite party no. 2 with an oblique motive to harass not only her husband (applicant no. 1) but also his family members, who have no direct involvement in the matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the family members, and the allegations levelled against them are vague, general, and omnibus in nature. It is contended that continuation of proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
5. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756, Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another; 2025 SCC Online SC 884, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.