Suresh Chandra v. Vipin Yadav others) summoned the

2. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Vipin Yadav @ Seetu @ Vipin, Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayveer @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned summoning order dated

25.03.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Etawah in Complaint Case No.323 of 2018 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Vipin Yadav & others) summoned the applicants under section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah. And It is further be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Complaint Case No.323 of 2018 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Vipin Yadav & others) under section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court, that above noted case is presently pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Etawah. 2 A482 No. 44419 of 2023 Or may be pleased to pass such further and suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 28.9.2018 was filed by the opposite party no.2 Suresh Chandra against the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Geeta Kumari was solemnized with Vipin Yadav @ Situ on 11.5.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In the marriage he had given Rs.10 lakh cash and gifts of house-hold after which his daughter was sent in vidai to her maternal house. The accused persons were not happy with the gifts and streedhan and there was demand of Rs.2 lakh as additional dowry from her due to which they started torture and harassment to her. The accused persons were consoled but did not met their ways. On 17.09.2018 at about 4 p.m., the in- laws of his daughter and her husband assaulted her and threw her out of the house. Then she came to her maternal house. Her medical examination was got done on 19.09.2018 at Government Hospital, Etawah. He went to police station for lodging report but no report was lodged. Subsequent to which he sent an application through registered post to the S.S.P, Etawah on

22.09.2018 on which no action was taken. Thus an application has been filed of which was directed to be registered and investigated. The said application was supported by an affidavit dated 28.9.2018 of the complainant. The same was directed to be treated as a complaint by the court concerned. Along with the said application, a medical examination report of Geeta Kumari dated

19.9.2018 was placed in which she was found to have received five abrasions on her body and the opinion of the doctor was that the injuries are simple in nature and about 1-2 days old which were caused by hard and blunt object. The statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no.2 Suresh Chandra was recorded after which the statement of Geeta Kumari, and Rajendra Singh was recorded as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently vide order dated 25.3.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah, the accused persons were summoned for offence under Sections 323, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The present petition has thus been filed before this Court. 3 A482 No. 44419 of 2023

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no such incident whatsoever occurred and it was some confusion in the matrimonial relationship. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.3 is the father-in-law, applicant no.4 is the devar and applicant no.5 is the jeth of opposite party no.3. As per complaint, the allegation of assault is upon the applicant no.1, the husband. In so far as the applicant nos.2 to 5 who are in-laws of the victim is concerned, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them and there is no allegation against them of assaulting the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2022) 6 SCC 599; Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2024 SCC On Line SC 3473, Dara Lakshmi Narayan and others Vs. State of Telangana and another : 2024 SCC On Line SC 3682 and Geddam Jhansi Vs. The State of Telangana : 2025 INSC 160 and submitted that in so far as the applicant nos.2 to 5 are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against her and as such their case stands on different footing with that of applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh (husband).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State have been heard.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh, is the husband of opposite party no.3 and there are allegations against him of assaulting the victim/opposite party no.3. The petition in so far as applicant no.1 is concerned, there is no ground for interference. The petition stands rejected regarding applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh (husband).

8. In so far as applicant nos.2 to 5 namely Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayver @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and jeth respectively of the opposite party no.3 are concerned, there is no allegation against them of assaulting the opposite 4 A482 No. 44419 of 2023 party no.3. There are general and omnibus allegations against them.

9. In view of the above and looking the judgement of the Apex Court, in so far as applicant nos.2 to 5 namely Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayver @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu who are mother-in-law, father-in- law, devar and jeth respectively of the opposite party no.3 are concerned, the present petition stands allowed.

10. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case including summoning order passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed in so far as it relates to applicant nos.2 to 5 who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and jeth of the opposite party no.3.

11. It is made clear that proceedings against applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh who is husband of opposite party no.3 shall go on in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

12. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today. September 22, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Vipin Yadav @ Seetu @ Vipin, Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayveer @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned summoning order dated

25.03.2023 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Etawah in Complaint Case No.323 of 2018 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Vipin Yadav & others) summoned the applicants under section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah. And It is further be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Complaint Case No.323 of 2018 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Vipin Yadav & others) under section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court, that above noted case is presently pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Etawah. 2 A482 No. 44419 of 2023 Or may be pleased to pass such further and suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 28.9.2018 was filed by the opposite party no.2 Suresh Chandra against the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Geeta Kumari was solemnized with Vipin Yadav @ Situ on 11.5.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In the marriage he had given Rs.10 lakh cash and gifts of house-hold after which his daughter was sent in vidai to her maternal house. The accused persons were not happy with the gifts and streedhan and there was demand of Rs.2 lakh as additional dowry from her due to which they started torture and harassment to her. The accused persons were consoled but did not met their ways. On 17.09.2018 at about 4 p.m., the in- laws of his daughter and her husband assaulted her and threw her out of the house. Then she came to her maternal house. Her medical examination was got done on 19.09.2018 at Government Hospital, Etawah. He went to police station for lodging report but no report was lodged. Subsequent to which he sent an application through registered post to the S.S.P, Etawah on

22.09.2018 on which no action was taken. Thus an application has been filed of which was directed to be registered and investigated. The said application was supported by an affidavit dated 28.9.2018 of the complainant. The same was directed to be treated as a complaint by the court concerned. Along with the said application, a medical examination report of Geeta Kumari dated

19.9.2018 was placed in which she was found to have received five abrasions on her body and the opinion of the doctor was that the injuries are simple in nature and about 1-2 days old which were caused by hard and blunt object. The statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no.2 Suresh Chandra was recorded after which the statement of Geeta Kumari, and Rajendra Singh was recorded as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently vide order dated 25.3.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah, the accused persons were summoned for offence under Sections 323, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The present petition has thus been filed before this Court. 3 A482 No. 44419 of 2023

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no such incident whatsoever occurred and it was some confusion in the matrimonial relationship. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.3 is the father-in-law, applicant no.4 is the devar and applicant no.5 is the jeth of opposite party no.3. As per complaint, the allegation of assault is upon the applicant no.1, the husband. In so far as the applicant nos.2 to 5 who are in-laws of the victim is concerned, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them and there is no allegation against them of assaulting the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2022) 6 SCC 599; Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2024 SCC On Line SC 3473, Dara Lakshmi Narayan and others Vs. State of Telangana and another : 2024 SCC On Line SC 3682 and Geddam Jhansi Vs. The State of Telangana : 2025 INSC 160 and submitted that in so far as the applicant nos.2 to 5 are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against her and as such their case stands on different footing with that of applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh (husband).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State have been heard.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh, is the husband of opposite party no.3 and there are allegations against him of assaulting the victim/opposite party no.3. The petition in so far as applicant no.1 is concerned, there is no ground for interference. The petition stands rejected regarding applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh (husband).

8. In so far as applicant nos.2 to 5 namely Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayver @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and jeth respectively of the opposite party no.3 are concerned, there is no allegation against them of assaulting the opposite 4 A482 No. 44419 of 2023 party no.3. There are general and omnibus allegations against them.

9. In view of the above and looking the judgement of the Apex Court, in so far as applicant nos.2 to 5 namely Smt. Gaya Shree, Udayver @ Udayveer Singh, Rohit and Surjeet Singh @ Deepu who are mother-in-law, father-in- law, devar and jeth respectively of the opposite party no.3 are concerned, the present petition stands allowed.

10. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case including summoning order passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed in so far as it relates to applicant nos.2 to 5 who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and jeth of the opposite party no.3.

11. It is made clear that proceedings against applicant no.1 Vipin Yadav @ Situ @ Vipin Singh who is husband of opposite party no.3 shall go on in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

12. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today. September 22, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad