State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

Alok Srivastava G.A., Raj Kumar Mishra Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4340 of 2019; State Vs. Arun Soni & others, arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti as well as impugned charge sheet no.66/19, dated 11.10.2019 as well as impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of applicant's nephew, namely, Arun Soni was performed with the opposite party no.2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 24.02.2018, without any dowry and after the marriage when the opposite party no.2 came to her in-law's house, she was treated with much love and affection by her in-laws. Out of the wedlock, a child was born. After some time, the opposite party no.2 and her family members started pressuring Arun Soni to live separately from his family, but when he refused to do so, opposite party no.2 left in-law's house along with her ornaments as well as child and started living at her parental house. Arun Soni (husband) as well as his family members tried to bring back the opposite party no.2 to his house, but she refused to come. On 08.06.2019, the opposite party no.2 filed an FIR at Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 0032/2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act roping the husband, his entire family and relatives.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 2 A482 No. 631 of 2020 maternal uncle (mama) of husband of opposite party no.2 and is residing separately and he has no role to play in the family matter of opposite party no.2. He further submits that being the maternal uncle of husband of opposite party no.2, he has been roped in the FIR with false and frivolous allegations of demand of dowry. Thus, the instant proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution on the part of opposite party no.2 against the applicant with ulterior motive. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there are clear and categorical allegations with regard to the demand of dowry torture for demand of dowry against the applicant. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant as well as other family members of husband of opposite party no.2. Further, the trial court having found a prima facie case taken cognizance and summoned the applicant as well as other family members of husband of opposite party no.2, therefore, there is no illegality in the instant proceedings initiated against the applicant and also in the charge-sheet as well as in the summoning order passed by the learned trial court.

6. Learned A.G.A. supports the submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

7. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the material brought on record. From the record of the case, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been made out against the applicant herein. Only general and vague allegations have been made with regard to torture for demand of dowry to opposite party no.2. The applicant is maternal uncle of opposite party no.2, who is also living separately from the family of husband of opposite party no.2, therefore, he has no role to play in the alleged dispute. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt 3 A482 No. 631 of 2020 observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which for not need not be mentioned here encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

22. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr. P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power."

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant FIR is related to demand of dowry by making general allegations against the applicants herein. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4340 of 2019; State Vs. Arun Soni & 4 A482 No. 631 of 2020 others, arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti as well as impugned charge sheet no.66/19, dated 11.10.2019 and summoning order dated 25.10.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti, are hereby quashed so far as the present applicant is concerned. December 4, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Srivastava G.A., Raj Kumar Mishra Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4340 of 2019; State Vs. Arun Soni & others, arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti as well as impugned charge sheet no.66/19, dated 11.10.2019 as well as impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of applicant's nephew, namely, Arun Soni was performed with the opposite party no.2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 24.02.2018, without any dowry and after the marriage when the opposite party no.2 came to her in-law's house, she was treated with much love and affection by her in-laws. Out of the wedlock, a child was born. After some time, the opposite party no.2 and her family members started pressuring Arun Soni to live separately from his family, but when he refused to do so, opposite party no.2 left in-law's house along with her ornaments as well as child and started living at her parental house. Arun Soni (husband) as well as his family members tried to bring back the opposite party no.2 to his house, but she refused to come. On 08.06.2019, the opposite party no.2 filed an FIR at Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 0032/2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act roping the husband, his entire family and relatives.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 2 A482 No. 631 of 2020 maternal uncle (mama) of husband of opposite party no.2 and is residing separately and he has no role to play in the family matter of opposite party no.2. He further submits that being the maternal uncle of husband of opposite party no.2, he has been roped in the FIR with false and frivolous allegations of demand of dowry. Thus, the instant proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution on the part of opposite party no.2 against the applicant with ulterior motive. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there are clear and categorical allegations with regard to the demand of dowry torture for demand of dowry against the applicant. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant as well as other family members of husband of opposite party no.2. Further, the trial court having found a prima facie case taken cognizance and summoned the applicant as well as other family members of husband of opposite party no.2, therefore, there is no illegality in the instant proceedings initiated against the applicant and also in the charge-sheet as well as in the summoning order passed by the learned trial court.

6. Learned A.G.A. supports the submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

7. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the material brought on record. From the record of the case, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been made out against the applicant herein. Only general and vague allegations have been made with regard to torture for demand of dowry to opposite party no.2. The applicant is maternal uncle of opposite party no.2, who is also living separately from the family of husband of opposite party no.2, therefore, he has no role to play in the alleged dispute. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt 3 A482 No. 631 of 2020 observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which for not need not be mentioned here encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

22. In yet another case reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr. P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power."

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant FIR is related to demand of dowry by making general allegations against the applicants herein. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4340 of 2019; State Vs. Arun Soni & 4 A482 No. 631 of 2020 others, arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shrawasti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti as well as impugned charge sheet no.66/19, dated 11.10.2019 and summoning order dated 25.10.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti, are hereby quashed so far as the present applicant is concerned. December 4, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench