Priyanka v. Ajay Kumar and others) CNR No. UPM

1. Heard Sri Umair Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, who are six in number and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the Complaint Case no. 41736 of 2023 (Priyanka Vs. Ajay Kumar and others) CNR No. UPM00403930/2024 arising out of impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, district Moradabad under section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

3. The case of the applicant is that on 26.07.2023, proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC came to be lodged against the applicants, who are sister-in- law, Nandoi, Jeth, Jethani, mother-in-law, and also who are applicants herein, and non-applicant, Ajay Kumar, who happens to be the husband with an allegation that the marriage of the O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with one Ajay Kumar on 10.07.2018 and with their wedlock a baby was born and thereafter the O.P. No.2 again conceived. On 22.04.2023, the allegation is that the applicants herein joined together and with common intention called the O.P. No.2, from her room and when she came then her husband initially started assaulting and thereafter the mother-in-law and the applicants herein required the husband to leave the O.P. No.2 in her maternal house on the ground that the gifts offered at the time of marriage, were not as per the expectations, and their demand was for more. Thereafter on 16.07.2023, on the basis of the rendering of good-books, the people sat across the table and 2 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 the applicants herein were talking and conversing in a good manner, however, thereafter the applicant no.3 had given a blow and a push to O.P. No.2, pursuant whereto she fell down and her husband with the aid of the legs had given a blow on the stomach of O.P. no.2 and after some time, the co-accused Pintu took out her knife and he also extended injuries, pursuant whereto blood started oozing out. Thereafter the other co-accused Rajwati slapped the mother of the O.P. No.2 and when the relatives of O.P. No.2 came for rescue, then applicant no.4 had given a blow to the father of O.P. No.2 and the other applicants/ co-accused had beaten the father of O.P. No.2 with fists and legs, pursuant whereto, he also sustained injuries and was hospitalized on 17.07.2023, a complaint was lodged on 18.07.2023 followed by the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC on 26.07.2023 and post- transformation of the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC to a complaint case, statement of O.P. No.2 stood recorded followed by the statement of Jagpal, Yaswati etc. and thereafter the applicants herein came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Pintu under Section 324 of IPC on 25.07.2024.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the entire 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. Further submission is that it is O.P. No.2, who according to her own wishes had gone to her maternal house and the theory so sought to be propounded regarding demand of dowry is preposterous, particularly when it is highly unbelievable and inconceivable that post-birth of a boy and when twins are in the womb of O.P. No.2, such type of treatment would be extended to O.P. No.2. It is also contended that there are no dates and details mentioned as to when demand of dowry was made and the statements of witnesses cannot be relief upon as a gospel truth, particularly when the statements of the witnesses are of the interested witnesses and further statements of the witnesses are tailormade just to suit the case of prosecution and court below has summoned the applicants in a routine manner without recording prima facie satisfaction.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, 3 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 offences are made out from the narration of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, particularly when there is no material contradiction or variations therein, which makes the case triable in nature and this Court cannot interfere at this stage while scuttling the proceedings.

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

8. Apparently, at the instance of the applicant, challenge has been raised to a summoning order whereby the applicants have been summoned under Penal Sections. There are various criteria which are to be taken into consideration in order to adjudge, whether the summoning order suffers from any infirmity or not amongst other one of the criteria would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint, vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC. In case, there are no material contradictions, which goes to the root of the matter eroding the prosecution theory, then obviously the Courts would be reluctant in interfering. Applying the said principles in the present case, it emerges that the allegation is with regard to assault, maltreatment and on 22.04.2023 and 16.07.2023, pursuant whereto, the O.P. No.2, her father and mother sustained injuries. The injury report is already on record at page-23 of the paper-book, according to which as many as four injuries had been sustained by the injured O.P. No.2. This Court at this stage is only required to prima facie to evaluate the allegations and it does not mean the Court should go into the merits of the allegations and what is to be seen at the stage of summoning, is whether the case is triable or not. Once it has come on record that the injuries have been sustained and further there are direct and pinpointed allegations against the applicants, then it would be travesty of the justice to scuttle the proceedings at this stage.

9. In any view of the matter, it is for the applicant to contest the trial while substantiating the claim that the allegations are false, fictitious and a bundle of lies. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings wherein summoning order is subject matter of challenge under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS and it was mandated in Neeharika Infrastructures vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315 then the Court should be reluctant in interfering in a routine manner and they should not scuttle the proceedings, once the case is self-speaking in that regard and no roving and fishing inquiry is to be 4 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 conducted at the stage of summoning.

10. In the opinion of the Court, the case of the applicants does not fall within an exceptional category.

11. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with correct perspective. September 1, 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 Umair Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, who are six in number and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the Complaint Case no. 41736 of 2023 (Priyanka Vs. Ajay Kumar and others) CNR No. UPM00403930/2024 arising out of impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, district Moradabad under section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

3. The case of the applicant is that on 26.07.2023, proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC came to be lodged against the applicants, who are sister-in- law, Nandoi, Jeth, Jethani, mother-in-law, and also who are applicants herein, and non-applicant, Ajay Kumar, who happens to be the husband with an allegation that the marriage of the O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with one Ajay Kumar on 10.07.2018 and with their wedlock a baby was born and thereafter the O.P. No.2 again conceived. On 22.04.2023, the allegation is that the applicants herein joined together and with common intention called the O.P. No.2, from her room and when she came then her husband initially started assaulting and thereafter the mother-in-law and the applicants herein required the husband to leave the O.P. No.2 in her maternal house on the ground that the gifts offered at the time of marriage, were not as per the expectations, and their demand was for more. Thereafter on 16.07.2023, on the basis of the rendering of good-books, the people sat across the table and 2 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 the applicants herein were talking and conversing in a good manner, however, thereafter the applicant no.3 had given a blow and a push to O.P. No.2, pursuant whereto she fell down and her husband with the aid of the legs had given a blow on the stomach of O.P. no.2 and after some time, the co-accused Pintu took out her knife and he also extended injuries, pursuant whereto blood started oozing out. Thereafter the other co-accused Rajwati slapped the mother of the O.P. No.2 and when the relatives of O.P. No.2 came for rescue, then applicant no.4 had given a blow to the father of O.P. No.2 and the other applicants/ co-accused had beaten the father of O.P. No.2 with fists and legs, pursuant whereto, he also sustained injuries and was hospitalized on 17.07.2023, a complaint was lodged on 18.07.2023 followed by the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC on 26.07.2023 and post- transformation of the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC to a complaint case, statement of O.P. No.2 stood recorded followed by the statement of Jagpal, Yaswati etc. and thereafter the applicants herein came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Pintu under Section 324 of IPC on 25.07.2024.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the entire 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. Further submission is that it is O.P. No.2, who according to her own wishes had gone to her maternal house and the theory so sought to be propounded regarding demand of dowry is preposterous, particularly when it is highly unbelievable and inconceivable that post-birth of a boy and when twins are in the womb of O.P. No.2, such type of treatment would be extended to O.P. No.2. It is also contended that there are no dates and details mentioned as to when demand of dowry was made and the statements of witnesses cannot be relief upon as a gospel truth, particularly when the statements of the witnesses are of the interested witnesses and further statements of the witnesses are tailormade just to suit the case of prosecution and court below has summoned the applicants in a routine manner without recording prima facie satisfaction.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, 3 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 offences are made out from the narration of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, particularly when there is no material contradiction or variations therein, which makes the case triable in nature and this Court cannot interfere at this stage while scuttling the proceedings.

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

8. Apparently, at the instance of the applicant, challenge has been raised to a summoning order whereby the applicants have been summoned under Penal Sections. There are various criteria which are to be taken into consideration in order to adjudge, whether the summoning order suffers from any infirmity or not amongst other one of the criteria would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint, vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC. In case, there are no material contradictions, which goes to the root of the matter eroding the prosecution theory, then obviously the Courts would be reluctant in interfering. Applying the said principles in the present case, it emerges that the allegation is with regard to assault, maltreatment and on 22.04.2023 and 16.07.2023, pursuant whereto, the O.P. No.2, her father and mother sustained injuries. The injury report is already on record at page-23 of the paper-book, according to which as many as four injuries had been sustained by the injured O.P. No.2. This Court at this stage is only required to prima facie to evaluate the allegations and it does not mean the Court should go into the merits of the allegations and what is to be seen at the stage of summoning, is whether the case is triable or not. Once it has come on record that the injuries have been sustained and further there are direct and pinpointed allegations against the applicants, then it would be travesty of the justice to scuttle the proceedings at this stage.

9. In any view of the matter, it is for the applicant to contest the trial while substantiating the claim that the allegations are false, fictitious and a bundle of lies. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings wherein summoning order is subject matter of challenge under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS and it was mandated in Neeharika Infrastructures vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315 then the Court should be reluctant in interfering in a routine manner and they should not scuttle the proceedings, once the case is self-speaking in that regard and no roving and fishing inquiry is to be 4 NA528 No. 32841 of 2025 conducted at the stage of summoning.

10. In the opinion of the Court, the case of the applicants does not fall within an exceptional category.

11. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with correct perspective. September 1, 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