State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants 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 entire criminal proceeding including summoning order dated 04.07.2025 in complaint case no.15215/2024, Under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1, Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant nos.2 and 3 and Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. against applicant no.4 of Police Station Jagdishpura, District-Agra (Aneeta Sharma Versus Bhavtosh Sharma and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 /wife on 29.06.2024 against the applicants, who happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and jeth. Allegation is that the marriage of the applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 06.02.2018 and in the marriage expenditure worth Rs.10,00,000/-, was incurrect and other valuable items and gifts were offered including Rs.2,51,000/- in cash. It is also alleged that the O.P. No.2 was harassed in all possible manner for demand of additional dowry to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and the applicant no.1 used to come in intoxicating state and on 28.12.2019, a baby was born and the entire expenditure was borne by the father of O.P. No.2. It is also alleged that the valuables of O.P. No.2 and stridhan were snatched away by the applicant 2 NA528 No. 35444 of 2025 no.1. Consequent to lodging of the complaint, the matter was mediated, but nothing happened and when the grandmother of applicant no.1 became ill, then the entire expenditure was incurred by the father of O.P. No.2, even the ancestral house was also purchased, but for the construction, additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- had been made and on 03.12.2022, the applicants came in the house of the O.P. No.2, hurled abuses and administered beating and raised demand of dowry. The allegation is to the extent that on

24.11.2022, the O.P. No.2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Post lodging of the complaint, statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 of CrPC followed by statement under Section 202 CrPC of Shankar Lal and Ram Niwas, the applicant no.1 came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act, applicant no.2 and 3 under Sections 498- A, 323 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicant no.4 under Sections 498- A, 323 IPC.

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. Submission is that the applicants at no point of time had demanded any dowry, as there is no date or instance mentioned with regard to the demand of dowry. It is also contended that the allegation with regard to the fact that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to the offence under Section 323 IPC, but there is nothing on record to substantiate that there is any injury report. Further contention is that in the statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 CrPC, barring the allegations that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to assault, nothing is on record. It is also contended that there is nothing on record except bald allegation that the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house on 24.11.2022. Even the statements made 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. Learned counsel for the applicants further as per the instructions submits that the applicant shall be filing a discharge 3 NA528 No. 35444 of 2025 application.

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 which makes the case triable, however, he submits that once the applicants seek to file discharge application, he has no objection.

7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and looking into the nature of allegations and stands of the parties, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to file the proceedings by way of discharge application by 09.10.2025 and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall decide the same with most expedition.

8. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants with respect to summoning order dated 04.07.2025 in complaint case no.15215/2024, Under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1, under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant nos.2 and 3 and Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. against applicant no.4 of Police Station Jagdishpura, District-Agra (Aneeta Sharma Versus Bhavtosh Sharma and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra.

9. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 16, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants 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 entire criminal proceeding including summoning order dated 04.07.2025 in complaint case no.15215/2024, Under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1, Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant nos.2 and 3 and Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. against applicant no.4 of Police Station Jagdishpura, District-Agra (Aneeta Sharma Versus Bhavtosh Sharma and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 /wife on 29.06.2024 against the applicants, who happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and jeth. Allegation is that the marriage of the applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 06.02.2018 and in the marriage expenditure worth Rs.10,00,000/-, was incurrect and other valuable items and gifts were offered including Rs.2,51,000/- in cash. It is also alleged that the O.P. No.2 was harassed in all possible manner for demand of additional dowry to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and the applicant no.1 used to come in intoxicating state and on 28.12.2019, a baby was born and the entire expenditure was borne by the father of O.P. No.2. It is also alleged that the valuables of O.P. No.2 and stridhan were snatched away by the applicant 2 NA528 No. 35444 of 2025 no.1. Consequent to lodging of the complaint, the matter was mediated, but nothing happened and when the grandmother of applicant no.1 became ill, then the entire expenditure was incurred by the father of O.P. No.2, even the ancestral house was also purchased, but for the construction, additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- had been made and on 03.12.2022, the applicants came in the house of the O.P. No.2, hurled abuses and administered beating and raised demand of dowry. The allegation is to the extent that on

24.11.2022, the O.P. No.2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Post lodging of the complaint, statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 of CrPC followed by statement under Section 202 CrPC of Shankar Lal and Ram Niwas, the applicant no.1 came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act, applicant no.2 and 3 under Sections 498- A, 323 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicant no.4 under Sections 498- A, 323 IPC.

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. Submission is that the applicants at no point of time had demanded any dowry, as there is no date or instance mentioned with regard to the demand of dowry. It is also contended that the allegation with regard to the fact that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to the offence under Section 323 IPC, but there is nothing on record to substantiate that there is any injury report. Further contention is that in the statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 CrPC, barring the allegations that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to assault, nothing is on record. It is also contended that there is nothing on record except bald allegation that the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house on 24.11.2022. Even the statements made 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. Learned counsel for the applicants further as per the instructions submits that the applicant shall be filing a discharge 3 NA528 No. 35444 of 2025 application.

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 which makes the case triable, however, he submits that once the applicants seek to file discharge application, he has no objection.

7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and looking into the nature of allegations and stands of the parties, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to file the proceedings by way of discharge application by 09.10.2025 and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall decide the same with most expedition.

8. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants with respect to summoning order dated 04.07.2025 in complaint case no.15215/2024, Under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1, under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant nos.2 and 3 and Under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. against applicant no.4 of Police Station Jagdishpura, District-Agra (Aneeta Sharma Versus Bhavtosh Sharma and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra.

9. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 16, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad