Suman Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Sadhana Nishad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vimal Shukla, learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2.

2. The applicant has filed this application with the following main prayers: "....... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 21.3.2022 passed by Session Judge, District-Shrawasti in Criminal Revision No.15/2021, Suman Devi Vs. State of U.P. & another, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition. This Hon'be Court further be pleased to quash the Summoning order dated 15.3.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, District- Shraswati in Complaint Case No.810/2016, Smt. Manju Kumari Vs. Sudheer Kumar & others, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is married Nanad. Her marriage was performed in the year 2008 2 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 with one Dhruv Kumar Gupta, whereas in the present case the brother of applicant, Sudheer Kumar Gupta, was married with opposite party No. 2 in the year 2014. It has been submitted that there is general allegation of dowry demand levelled in the complaint and further in the statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. also general allegation has been levelled to the extent that golden chain was demanded by all the proposed accused persons. It has been submitted that except the aforesaid allegation, no other allegation is levelled. He has further submitted that in the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 there is no specific role against the applicant, rather, at many places it is mentioned that Sudheer Kumar, Ram Prasad and Javanti Devi, i.e., opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in that complaint had committed offence of dowry demand and harassment, however, there is no specific averment made against the applicant except that she is made party in the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & anr. v. State of U.P. & anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 (para 24 and 25), which read as under:

24. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in Ramesh v. State of T.N, (2005) 3 SCC 507, that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to pro-long the controversy. The facts in that matter on this aspect were although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position re-mains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the 3 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by high-lighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the of-fence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the in-stance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of 4 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, Ms. Sadhana Nishad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vimal Shukla, has submitted that the bare perusal of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that allegation of dowry demand is levelled, that is pertaining to one golden chain, against the applicant. She has submitted that after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summons have been issued. There is no illegality and infirmity in the order.

6. After going through record I find that there is no specific allegation against the applicant as to how she was involved in commission of crime; the complaint also goes to indicate that specific allegation is levelled against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, but against opposite party No. 4 there is no specific allegation made of dowry demand, except that she is made as party in the complaint. The statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also does not indicate any specific role against the applicant, rather it is general role that has been assigned to all the accused alongwith applicant also; case of the applicant is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). The application is accordingly allowed.

7. Order dated 21.3.2022 passed by Session Judge, District-Shrawasti in Criminal Revision No.15/2021, Suman Devi Vs. State of U.P. & another, U/S. 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition, as also the Summoning order dated

15.3.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, District- Shraswati in Complaint Case No.810/2016, Smt. Manju Kumari Vs. Sudheer Kumar & others, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition, so far as these orders relation to the applicant herein, are hereby quashed. December 18, 2025 A.Nigam (Brij Raj Singh,J.) ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Sadhana Nishad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vimal Shukla, learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2.

2. The applicant has filed this application with the following main prayers: "....... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 21.3.2022 passed by Session Judge, District-Shrawasti in Criminal Revision No.15/2021, Suman Devi Vs. State of U.P. & another, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition. This Hon'be Court further be pleased to quash the Summoning order dated 15.3.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, District- Shraswati in Complaint Case No.810/2016, Smt. Manju Kumari Vs. Sudheer Kumar & others, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is married Nanad. Her marriage was performed in the year 2008 2 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 with one Dhruv Kumar Gupta, whereas in the present case the brother of applicant, Sudheer Kumar Gupta, was married with opposite party No. 2 in the year 2014. It has been submitted that there is general allegation of dowry demand levelled in the complaint and further in the statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. also general allegation has been levelled to the extent that golden chain was demanded by all the proposed accused persons. It has been submitted that except the aforesaid allegation, no other allegation is levelled. He has further submitted that in the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 there is no specific role against the applicant, rather, at many places it is mentioned that Sudheer Kumar, Ram Prasad and Javanti Devi, i.e., opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in that complaint had committed offence of dowry demand and harassment, however, there is no specific averment made against the applicant except that she is made party in the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & anr. v. State of U.P. & anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 (para 24 and 25), which read as under:

24. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in Ramesh v. State of T.N, (2005) 3 SCC 507, that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to pro-long the controversy. The facts in that matter on this aspect were although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position re-mains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the 3 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by high-lighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the of-fence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the in-stance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of 4 A482 No. 1575 of 2022 domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, Ms. Sadhana Nishad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vimal Shukla, has submitted that the bare perusal of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that allegation of dowry demand is levelled, that is pertaining to one golden chain, against the applicant. She has submitted that after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summons have been issued. There is no illegality and infirmity in the order.

6. After going through record I find that there is no specific allegation against the applicant as to how she was involved in commission of crime; the complaint also goes to indicate that specific allegation is levelled against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, but against opposite party No. 4 there is no specific allegation made of dowry demand, except that she is made as party in the complaint. The statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also does not indicate any specific role against the applicant, rather it is general role that has been assigned to all the accused alongwith applicant also; case of the applicant is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). The application is accordingly allowed.

7. Order dated 21.3.2022 passed by Session Judge, District-Shrawasti in Criminal Revision No.15/2021, Suman Devi Vs. State of U.P. & another, U/S. 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition, as also the Summoning order dated

15.3.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, District- Shraswati in Complaint Case No.810/2016, Smt. Manju Kumari Vs. Sudheer Kumar & others, U/S.498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition, so far as these orders relation to the applicant herein, are hereby quashed. December 18, 2025 A.Nigam (Brij Raj Singh,J.) ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench