Rekha v. Chandan Kumar Gupta, under section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35278 of 2025 Chandan Kumar Gupta State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Verma, Uday Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tiwari Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Legal Reasoning
statements of the witnesses, the applicant has been summoned without recording any prima facie satisfaction and the summoning order does not 3 NA528 No. 35278 of 2025 even specifically deal with the same. Learned counsel for the applicant as per the instructions, submits that the applicant shall be preferring discharge application seeking discharge. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the statements so made under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, vis-a-vis the complaint, the prima facie offences are made, however, mere lodging of a complaint by the father of the opposite party no.2 and dismissal of the same and lodging of a first information report by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant could not forestall the present proceedings, however he submits that in case the applicant seeks to file discharge application he has no objection to the same. 7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, and looking into the over all facts situation, stand taken by the applicant as well as the nature of the allegations, without entering into the merits, the application stands disposed of directing the applicant to submit a discharge application by 9.10.2025. On the receipt of the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application. 8. Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action be taken against the applicant with respect to the operation of order dated 09.10.2019 and order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 7, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 1238 of 2018, Rekha Vs. Chandan Kumar Gupta, under section 498A, 494, 323, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station: Chaubepur, District: Varanasi. 9. The protection accorded to the applicant 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 15, 2025 piyush (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Uday Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1238 of 2018, Rekha Vs. Chandan Kumar Gupta, under section 498A, 494, 323, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station: Chaubepur, District: Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 7, Varanasi as well as order dated 09.10.2019 and order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 7, Varanasi. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant being Complaint No. 1238 of 2018, under Section 494 IPC with an allegation that on 21.11.2009 the marriage of the opposite party no.2 stood solemnized with applicant in the marriage huge expenditures were incurred and offerings were made but the applicant was not happy and satisfied with the gifts so offered as the demand was much more so the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to mental and physical harassment. Allegation is also to the extent that though the Jeth of the opposite party no.2, Dharmendra is already married but in order to perpetuate extramarital affairs with one Kavita her marriage stood solemnized with the elder brother of the applicant Dharmendra on 10.06.2013 and in the garb of the same, the applicant used to maintain indecent relationship with her being extramarital affair a 2 NA528 No. 35278 of 2025 nd it is also alleged that though a baby was born but in the marriage certificate, the name of the applicant finds place as the father. Post recording of the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant and Section 202 Cr.P.C. of Gulab Chand followed by of Manoj Kumar Gupta, the applicant came to be summoned on 9.10.2019 under sections 498A, 323, 494 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. 4. Questioning the summoning order the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law for the simple reason that earlier a complaint stood lodged by the father of the opposite party no. 2 being Complaint Case no. 248 of 2012, Gulab Chand Vs. Chandan Kumar under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC but the same stood rejected on 9.1.2020, thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report bearing no. 0383 of 2017 dated 15.07.2017 under section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the applicant and other family members pursuant whereto a charge sheet has been submitted though in the FIR and allegation has been made to the extent that the applicant had solemnized second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage, but the applicant was not summoned, in that section however, now by means of the impugned complaint, the applicant has been summoned. He further submits that in the complaint itself in paragraph no. 12 and 13, this much is evident that the marriage of one Kavita was solemnized with the Jeth of the applicant being Dharmendra, thus, no offences under Section 494 IPC are made out as what would be the fact that the second marriage ought to have been solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage by the applicant. In paragraph no. 17, it has also been alleged that though the birth certificate, the name of the father of the child has been shown to be of the applicant, though the marriage stood solemnized of Kavita with the Jeth of the applicant. He also submits that, thus, it becomes apparently clear that no offences are made out and only on ipse dixit the allegations have been levelled. He further submits that on the basis of tailor-made