State of U.P. and Another v. Party

: Hemlata Srivastava, Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shrivastava Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

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

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 15.4.2025 and 13.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur in Complaint Case No.1768 of 2024 (Smt. Surya vs. Ram Lakhan & others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Jariya, District- Hamirpur, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur.

3. The case of the applicants is that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants being FIR No. 0254 of 2019 on 16.12.2019 at 14:47 hours under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with Dharmendra and on 16.12.2019 at about 10:03 hours in the morning, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 was called by the applicant no. 1 and the applicants herein started assaulting the father of the opposite party no. 2 with cuddle and the applicant no. 1 gave a blow to the father of the opposite party no. 2 and he fell down and sustained injuries and the applicant no. 1 resorted to gun shot firing pursuant whereto the father of the opposite party no. 2 dialed no. 112. The brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, the applicant no. 3 also proceeded to exhibit indecent behaviour and tore the clothes of the opposite party no. 2 and as per the allegations in the first information report already proceedings have been lodged for demand of 2 NA528 No. 30656 of 2025 dowry, however, threats were being administered. Post investigation, a final report came to be submitted against the applicant on 25.02.2020 thereafter, on 06.03.2024, a protest petition came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 pursuant whereto on 13.09.2024 the jurisdictional Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint case and post recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202, the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC on 15.04.2025.

4. Questioning the said order, the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the entire allegations so sought to be levelled upon the applicant is nothing but bundle of lies. Contention is that no such incident stood occurred on 16.12.2019, it is contended that in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no. 2, the allegation was relatable to administering of beating, assault and resorting to gun shot fire but in the statement under Section 200 there is no description given barring recital of a date being 16.12.2009. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the injuries which is stated to have been sustained by the injured Surya and Vivek Chand are fabricated and it is not on account of any act and omission of the applicants. It is also contended that once the final report came to be submitted after thorough investigation post recording of the statement under Section 161 and 164 then without there being any extra inputs or factors then there was no question of summoning the applicants. Further submission in the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. nothing has been recited except the fact that on 16.12.2019, the incident took place and there is nothing on record to show that what was the dates and the items which were sought to be demanded. Moreover, the statement of Vivek Chand under Section 202 to some extent throws light but once there is nothing on record in the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 regarding demand of dowry except a bare recital that demand of dowry was being made then the said allegations cannot be sustained to be specific or general insofar as they relate to offences under Section 498A. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the final report came to be submitted on 25.02.2020, however, a protest petition came to be preferred approximately after four years on 06.03.2024 which itself shows that it is nothing but a case of harassment and misuse of process of law.

6. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that allegations contained in the first information report as well as the statement of the 3 NA528 No. 30656 of 2025 witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, it is more than evident that prima facie offences are made out and merely because a final report came to be submitted would not be a ground to hold that the applicants are not guilty. He, however, submits that it is open for the applicants to file discharge application.

7. I heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Considering the submissions so made across the bar as well as the stand of the counsel for the applicant as per instructions received from appellant and the nature of allegations as well as overall fact situation, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to prefer discharge application by 26.09.2025 and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary delay.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in summoning order dated 15.4.2025 and 13.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur in Complaint Case No.1768 of 2024 (Smt. Surya vs. Ram Lakhan & others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Jariya, District-Hamirpur, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur.

10. Protection so accorded today, shall only be available to the applicants in those contingencies wherein, applicants stick to the timeline and does not commit any default to the order passed by this Court. September 3, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Hemlata Srivastava, Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shrivastava Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

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

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 15.4.2025 and 13.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur in Complaint Case No.1768 of 2024 (Smt. Surya vs. Ram Lakhan & others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Jariya, District- Hamirpur, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur.

3. The case of the applicants is that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants being FIR No. 0254 of 2019 on 16.12.2019 at 14:47 hours under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with Dharmendra and on 16.12.2019 at about 10:03 hours in the morning, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 was called by the applicant no. 1 and the applicants herein started assaulting the father of the opposite party no. 2 with cuddle and the applicant no. 1 gave a blow to the father of the opposite party no. 2 and he fell down and sustained injuries and the applicant no. 1 resorted to gun shot firing pursuant whereto the father of the opposite party no. 2 dialed no. 112. The brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, the applicant no. 3 also proceeded to exhibit indecent behaviour and tore the clothes of the opposite party no. 2 and as per the allegations in the first information report already proceedings have been lodged for demand of 2 NA528 No. 30656 of 2025 dowry, however, threats were being administered. Post investigation, a final report came to be submitted against the applicant on 25.02.2020 thereafter, on 06.03.2024, a protest petition came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 pursuant whereto on 13.09.2024 the jurisdictional Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint case and post recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202, the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC on 15.04.2025.

4. Questioning the said order, the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the entire allegations so sought to be levelled upon the applicant is nothing but bundle of lies. Contention is that no such incident stood occurred on 16.12.2019, it is contended that in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no. 2, the allegation was relatable to administering of beating, assault and resorting to gun shot fire but in the statement under Section 200 there is no description given barring recital of a date being 16.12.2009. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the injuries which is stated to have been sustained by the injured Surya and Vivek Chand are fabricated and it is not on account of any act and omission of the applicants. It is also contended that once the final report came to be submitted after thorough investigation post recording of the statement under Section 161 and 164 then without there being any extra inputs or factors then there was no question of summoning the applicants. Further submission in the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. nothing has been recited except the fact that on 16.12.2019, the incident took place and there is nothing on record to show that what was the dates and the items which were sought to be demanded. Moreover, the statement of Vivek Chand under Section 202 to some extent throws light but once there is nothing on record in the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 regarding demand of dowry except a bare recital that demand of dowry was being made then the said allegations cannot be sustained to be specific or general insofar as they relate to offences under Section 498A. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the final report came to be submitted on 25.02.2020, however, a protest petition came to be preferred approximately after four years on 06.03.2024 which itself shows that it is nothing but a case of harassment and misuse of process of law.

6. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that allegations contained in the first information report as well as the statement of the 3 NA528 No. 30656 of 2025 witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, it is more than evident that prima facie offences are made out and merely because a final report came to be submitted would not be a ground to hold that the applicants are not guilty. He, however, submits that it is open for the applicants to file discharge application.

7. I heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Considering the submissions so made across the bar as well as the stand of the counsel for the applicant as per instructions received from appellant and the nature of allegations as well as overall fact situation, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to prefer discharge application by 26.09.2025 and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary delay.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in summoning order dated 15.4.2025 and 13.9.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur in Complaint Case No.1768 of 2024 (Smt. Surya vs. Ram Lakhan & others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Jariya, District-Hamirpur, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Rath District Hamirpur.

10. Protection so accorded today, shall only be available to the applicants in those contingencies wherein, applicants stick to the timeline and does not commit any default to the order passed by this Court. September 3, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad