High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Applicant :- Smt. Santosh Devi And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Ms. Kokil Agarwal, advocate holding brief of Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-Opposite Party No.1, and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 18-06-2014 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 423 of 2014, arising out of case crime no. 86 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of sister of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with brother of applicant no.1 on 07-02-2010. Due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no.2 (brother of the victim) lodged F.I.R. against her husband and relatives of her husband i.e. present applicants on 19-08-2013. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that sister of opposite party no.2 subjected to various kind of cruelty by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of their demand of additional dowry. However, apart from her husband, opposite party no.2 has implicated Smt. Santoshi Devi (nanad), Smt. Sushila Devi (nanad), Smt. Rachna Devi (Jethani), Mahipal (Jeth) and Vinod Kumar (Jeth). After investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 25-02-2014 and cognizance was taken on 18- 06-2014. Charge-sheet and entire proceedings have been assailed by means of this application.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the instant F.I.R., has been falsely instituted by opposite party no.2 (brother of the victim) with an oblique motive to falsely implicate the applicants, who have no direct involvement in her matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the family members and the allegations 1 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 :- Smt. Santosh Devi And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Ms. Kokil Agarwal, advocate holding brief of Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-Opposite Party No.1, and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 18-06-2014 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 423 of 2014, arising out of case crime no. 86 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of sister of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with brother of applicant no.1 on 07-02-2010. Due to matrimonial discord, opposite party no.2 (brother of the victim) lodged F.I.R. against her husband and relatives of her husband i.e. present applicants on 19-08-2013. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that sister of opposite party no.2 subjected to various kind of cruelty by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of their demand of additional dowry. However, apart from her husband, opposite party no.2 has implicated Smt. Santoshi Devi (nanad), Smt. Sushila Devi (nanad), Smt. Rachna Devi (Jethani), Mahipal (Jeth) and Vinod Kumar (Jeth). After investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 25-02-2014 and cognizance was taken on 18- 06-2014. Charge-sheet and entire proceedings have been assailed by means of this application.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the instant F.I.R., has been falsely instituted by opposite party no.2 (brother of the victim) with an oblique motive to falsely implicate the applicants, who have no direct involvement in her matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the family members and the allegations 1 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.