Badshah v. Vishnu Dayal and others)

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

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings along with the summoning order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the court below in Complaint Case No. 865 of 2016 (Badshah Vs. Vishnu Dayal and others) (Case No.22/2023) Under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sec. 34 D.P. Act P.S. Kant, District- Shahjahanpur pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.),/ ACJM, III, Shahjahanpur.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicants with an allegation that the marriage of the daughter of O.P. No.2 stood fixed with applicant no.4 and for the said purpose in the ring ceremony, which was held on 15.02.2016, an amount of Rs.11,000/- as gift was offered. However on 24.04.2016, at about 02:30 hours, the opposite parties came in two four-wheelers, one Marshall Geep and another Maruti for a ceremony to be held prior to the marriage and after the ceremony was over, they demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, Fridge, Cooler and a Samsung LCD TV. When the same demand was objected by the O.P. No.2, then they hurled abuses and threatened that marriage would only be solemnized when the entire items demanded are given and they also with the aid of fists and legs assaulted the O.P. No.2, his wife and other relatives.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statements were recorded under Section 200 of the complainant and under Section 202 CrPC of witnesses being Pinku son of Raghunath and the applicant has been summoned on 09.10.2017 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No.865 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an FIR was lodged by the father of the O.P. Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 against the O.P. No.2 and two others under Section 323, 325, 313 IPC, FIR No.0292 on 24.04.2016 with regard to the incident dated 24.04.2016. He submits that the present complaint pursuant whereto the applicants have been summoned is a counterblast and further the applicants have not committed any criminality, they have been falsely implicated.

6. Attention has been invited towards paragraph-7 so as to contend that applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 received the summons dated 09.10.2017 through police officer on 04.02.2025 and while further inviting attention towards paragraph-22, it is contended that Vishnu Dayal Sharma, who had lodged the FIR had expired in January, 2025 and Nanhi Devi received summons and surrendered before the Court in the month of January, 2025. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd. and another vs. Harihar Singh and others, 2010(4) SCC (Crl.) 425.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application while contending that the present application has been preferred in the year 2025 against the summoning order of the year 2017 after 8 years. He also submits that prima facie offences are made out and this Court may not come to the rescue of the applicant.

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

9. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants pursuant whereto the applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 09.10.2017. The allegations are relatable to the offences committed on 24.04.2016, wherein demand of dowry was made as noticed above, which included an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, Refrigerater, Cooler, Samsung LCD TV. It is also alleged in the complaint that the applicants inflicted injuries to the O.P. No.2/wife and others. The statements under Section 200 of the CrPC also alleges criminality while specifying the date of the commission of the offences, and as regards the statements of the other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC of Rajeshwar son of Gangaram and Pinku son of Raghunath also pinpoints the allegations while giving specific dates and the role assigned. The court below while summoning the applicant has recorded prima facie satisfaction in summoning the applicants on the basis of the complaint and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court finds that there happens to be specific pinpointed allegations. The veracity of the same is not required to be tested at the stage of summoning. So far as the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of M/s Eicher Tractors (supra), is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition and the law laid down therein. However, here, there is a slight distinction that there happens to be allegations and the summoning order depicts that the court below while summoning the applicants had prima facie come to the conclusion that there are materials available on record to suggest that the case was triable. The Court further finds that the summoning order is of the year 2017 dated 09.10.2017, however, the present applicant has been filed in the year 2025 after a period of 8 years. Moreover, the explanation so furnished is not convincible.

10. Analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, the Court finds that the present case does not merit interference.

11. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings along with the summoning order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the court below in Complaint Case No. 865 of 2016 (Badshah Vs. Vishnu Dayal and others) (Case No.22/2023) Under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sec. 34 D.P. Act P.S. Kant, District- Shahjahanpur pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.),/ ACJM, III, Shahjahanpur.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicants with an allegation that the marriage of the daughter of O.P. No.2 stood fixed with applicant no.4 and for the said purpose in the ring ceremony, which was held on 15.02.2016, an amount of Rs.11,000/- as gift was offered. However on 24.04.2016, at about 02:30 hours, the opposite parties came in two four-wheelers, one Marshall Geep and another Maruti for a ceremony to be held prior to the marriage and after the ceremony was over, they demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, Fridge, Cooler and a Samsung LCD TV. When the same demand was objected by the O.P. No.2, then they hurled abuses and threatened that marriage would only be solemnized when the entire items demanded are given and they also with the aid of fists and legs assaulted the O.P. No.2, his wife and other relatives.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statements were recorded under Section 200 of the complainant and under Section 202 CrPC of witnesses being Pinku son of Raghunath and the applicant has been summoned on 09.10.2017 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No.865 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an FIR was lodged by the father of the O.P. Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 against the O.P. No.2 and two others under Section 323, 325, 313 IPC, FIR No.0292 on 24.04.2016 with regard to the incident dated 24.04.2016. He submits that the present complaint pursuant whereto the applicants have been summoned is a counterblast and further the applicants have not committed any criminality, they have been falsely implicated.

6. Attention has been invited towards paragraph-7 so as to contend that applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 received the summons dated 09.10.2017 through police officer on 04.02.2025 and while further inviting attention towards paragraph-22, it is contended that Vishnu Dayal Sharma, who had lodged the FIR had expired in January, 2025 and Nanhi Devi received summons and surrendered before the Court in the month of January, 2025. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd. and another vs. Harihar Singh and others, 2010(4) SCC (Crl.) 425.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application while contending that the present application has been preferred in the year 2025 against the summoning order of the year 2017 after 8 years. He also submits that prima facie offences are made out and this Court may not come to the rescue of the applicant.

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

9. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants pursuant whereto the applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 09.10.2017. The allegations are relatable to the offences committed on 24.04.2016, wherein demand of dowry was made as noticed above, which included an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, Refrigerater, Cooler, Samsung LCD TV. It is also alleged in the complaint that the applicants inflicted injuries to the O.P. No.2/wife and others. The statements under Section 200 of the CrPC also alleges criminality while specifying the date of the commission of the offences, and as regards the statements of the other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC of Rajeshwar son of Gangaram and Pinku son of Raghunath also pinpoints the allegations while giving specific dates and the role assigned. The court below while summoning the applicant has recorded prima facie satisfaction in summoning the applicants on the basis of the complaint and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court finds that there happens to be specific pinpointed allegations. The veracity of the same is not required to be tested at the stage of summoning. So far as the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of M/s Eicher Tractors (supra), is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition and the law laid down therein. However, here, there is a slight distinction that there happens to be allegations and the summoning order depicts that the court below while summoning the applicants had prima facie come to the conclusion that there are materials available on record to suggest that the case was triable. The Court further finds that the summoning order is of the year 2017 dated 09.10.2017, however, the present applicant has been filed in the year 2025 after a period of 8 years. Moreover, the explanation so furnished is not convincible.

10. Analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, the Court finds that the present case does not merit interference.

11. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad