Mahroon Nisha v. Mohd. Alam and others), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30947 of 2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144429 Applicant :- Mohd. Alam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that allegations contained in the complaint are nothing but a bundle of lies, which have got no nexus with the reality. Submission is that only general and omnibus allegations have been leveled without there being any specific allegation and the applicant has at no point of time had demanded any dowry in that regard. It is also contended that the allegation with respect to the dated 03.08.2022, 17.10.2022, 21.11.2022 and 27.11.2022 are false and incorrect. He submits that the statement of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC are tailormade just in order to suit the circumstances and the court below without recording any prima facie satisfaction, regarding the attraction of the penal sections has summoned the applicants in a routine manner. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2 on the other hand submit that perusal of the allegations in the complaint, vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, nowhere show that there is any material contradiction or variation, which goes to the root of the matter and the case becomes triable 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, at the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the summoning order, whereby the applicants have been summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act. There are various criteria which have to be adhered to in order to determine as to whether the summoning order suffers from infirmity or not. Amongst others, one of the factors would be the allegations made in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC, in case there are no material contradictions which goes to the root of the matter, then the case becomes triable and the Court is not required to interfere. Applying the said principles in the facts of the case, it is apparent that there happens to be proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants with the allegation that on 17.07.2022, the marriage of applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2. Allegation is that demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded and on 03.08.2022, the O.P. No.2 was taken to a shopping mall and thereafter left there, since demand of dowry could not be satisfied. Thereafter, a agreement stood entered into between the parties on 03.10.2022. Thereafter the parties started living together, however, on 17.10.2022 again the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from matrimonial house on a condition that her access into the house shall only be permitted provided the demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and a motorcycle is fulfilled. Thereafter post-challan the settlement stood entered on 04.11.2022 and after 8-10 days again the incident took place on 21.11.2022 wherein poisonous article was sought to be poured in, pursuant whereto the health of the O.P. No.2 deteriorated, she became ill and she was hospitalized and thereafter, on 27.11.2022, the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house snatching her stridhan and other articles. The said allegation stands supported by the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC followed by Farhanaaz and Shamshad under Section 202 of CrPC. Since there are no material contradictions thus it cannot be said that the complaint itself is frivolous and it is not liable to be proceeded with. So far as the arguments so raised that there are no injury report available and it is the subject matter which is to be seen at the stage when the trial commences. Moreover this Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegation at this stage, as what is to be seen is the fact whether the complaint is frivolous or not and in case, the same if frivolous and the issue is triable, then obviously the Court would not come to rescue of the applicant.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Jai Singh Yadav, 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 the the summoning order dated 09.08.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 4479 of 2023 (Mahroon Nisha Vs. Mohd. Alam and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.5, Moradabad. 3. The case of the applicant is that the proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC came to be lodged by the O.P. No.2 on 11.01.2023 against the applicants who happens to be the husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 17.07.2022. The allegation is that though in the marriage huge expenditures were incurred and gifts were offered by the parents of O.P. No.2, but the applicants were not happy as there expectation was much more, as their demand was to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the brother-in-law of the O.P. No.2 used to exhibit indecent behaviour and gesture. On account of non- payment of additional dowry, the applicants not happy and on 03.10.2022, they took the O.P. No.2 to a shopping mall and left her there. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened, pursuant whereto a settlement stood arrived, however, things went in a normal manner for a short period and again the demand of dowry was being raised. On 17.10.2022, again the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house due to matrimonial house with a demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the police had challaned the parties and thereafter again a settlement stood arrived on 04.11.2022, however, after 8-10 days, again the said situation occurred. Further allegation is that on 21.11.2022 beating was administered to the O.P. No.2 and poisonous article was given to her and she was thereafter hospitalized, and the expenses of the hospital were borne by the parents of O.P. No.2 and thereafter again a settlement stood arrived, however, thing went in normal pace for a further period of 2-4 days and thereafter it is alleged that on 27.11.2022, the applicants threatened and also attempted to done away the O.P. No.2 and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house, pursuant whereto a complaint stood lodged on 19.12.2022 and the proceedings under Sections 156(3) CrPC on 11.01.2023. Post recording of the statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 of CrPC followed by statement under Section 202 of CrPC of Farhanaaz and Shamshad, the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 09.08.2023. 4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.
Decision
9. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to contest the trial before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad