High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Soni And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt.Andors. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ayush Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the following main prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the charge sheet dated 14.03.2015 in case crime no. 153/2013 under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Bihar, District Unnao against all the petitioners. "

3. As per the ofÏce report dated 04.02.2025, "Notice served in person upon respondent no. 5", but neither the respondent no. 5 is present nor any counsel has filed his vakalatnama on her behalf. Thereafter, the case was listed on 05.02.2025 and 15.04.2025, even on those dates, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5.

4. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R dated 25.04.2013 has been lodged against 6 named accused persons including the present applicants under Sections 498 A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P Act alleging therein that the accused persons harassed the respondent no. 5 physically and mentally and demanded dowry. On 17.03.2013, all of the applicants threw her out of the house and tried to kill her minor child.

5. The Police, after the investigation, filed the chargesheet under sections mentioned in the F.I.R and the court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summoning orders against the applicants and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no such incident had ever occurred on 17.03.2013. Even, as per the admitted case of the respondent no. 5, during the cross-examination in the proceedings of complaint case no. 392 of 2014, filed by the respondent no. 5 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, wherein she had stated that no such incident occurred on 17.03.2013 and there is a possibility that the incident had occurred on 12.05.2013 because on that date, she was at her in-laws place. The copy of the cross- examination of respondent no. 5 in the aforementioned case has been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the paper book.

7. It is further submitted that after the lodging of the F.I.R on 11.06.2013, a complaint has been filed by the respondent no. 5, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, wherein she has alleged the date of the occurrence as 12.05.2013 and not 17.03.2013, as mentioned in the F.I.R for the same allegations.

8. It is further submitted that the applicants are the married sister-in-laws of the respondent no. 5 and they are living separately and one of the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 5 has been living in Delhi since the year 2002 and they very occasionally visit their parents home/maika and they never interfered in the married life of their brother.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 149 as well as in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others versus State of Telangana & Another, in Criminal appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024. The relevant extract of the judgment in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

10. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that as per the F.I.R and the chargesheet, the offence is made out against the applicants but he is unable to dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well the judgments relied upon.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, it is found that in the F.I.R, vague, bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the family members and no specific role has been assigned to them. The respondent no. 5 has also not mentioned the date or the manner in which the alleged harassment occurred except for a specific date given in the F.I.R i.e. 17.03.2013. This date of incident is doubtful as the respondent no. 5, at the time of cross-examination in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, stated that no such incident had occurred on 17.03.2013, but on 12.05.2013. Even for the incident, the manner in which she was alleged to be harassed by the applicants has not been disclosed. The applicants who are the married sisters-in-law of the respondent no. 5 and one of them is living in Delhi since the year 2002 and have not resided in the matrimonial house of respondent no. 5, hence they cannot be dragged in the criminal prosecution and in absence of any specific allegations against them, the same would amount to abuse of process of law.

12. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, it is found that the sections mentioned in the F.I.R under which the chargesheet has been filed against the applicants are not attracted and attributable to the applicants and as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases as mentioned above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

13. The chargesheet dated 14.03.2015 in Case Crime No. 153 of 2013, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Bihar, District Unnao and proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed as far as related to the applicants. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Smt. Soni And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt.Andors. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ayush Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the following main prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the charge sheet dated 14.03.2015 in case crime no. 153/2013 under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Bihar, District Unnao against all the petitioners. "

3. As per the ofÏce report dated 04.02.2025, "Notice served in person upon respondent no. 5", but neither the respondent no. 5 is present nor any counsel has filed his vakalatnama on her behalf. Thereafter, the case was listed on 05.02.2025 and 15.04.2025, even on those dates, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5.

4. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R dated 25.04.2013 has been lodged against 6 named accused persons including the present applicants under Sections 498 A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P Act alleging therein that the accused persons harassed the respondent no. 5 physically and mentally and demanded dowry. On 17.03.2013, all of the applicants threw her out of the house and tried to kill her minor child.

5. The Police, after the investigation, filed the chargesheet under sections mentioned in the F.I.R and the court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summoning orders against the applicants and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no such incident had ever occurred on 17.03.2013. Even, as per the admitted case of the respondent no. 5, during the cross-examination in the proceedings of complaint case no. 392 of 2014, filed by the respondent no. 5 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, wherein she had stated that no such incident occurred on 17.03.2013 and there is a possibility that the incident had occurred on 12.05.2013 because on that date, she was at her in-laws place. The copy of the cross- examination of respondent no. 5 in the aforementioned case has been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the paper book.

7. It is further submitted that after the lodging of the F.I.R on 11.06.2013, a complaint has been filed by the respondent no. 5, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, wherein she has alleged the date of the occurrence as 12.05.2013 and not 17.03.2013, as mentioned in the F.I.R for the same allegations.

8. It is further submitted that the applicants are the married sister-in-laws of the respondent no. 5 and they are living separately and one of the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 5 has been living in Delhi since the year 2002 and they very occasionally visit their parents home/maika and they never interfered in the married life of their brother.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 149 as well as in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others versus State of Telangana & Another, in Criminal appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024. The relevant extract of the judgment in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

10. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that as per the F.I.R and the chargesheet, the offence is made out against the applicants but he is unable to dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well the judgments relied upon.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, it is found that in the F.I.R, vague, bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the family members and no specific role has been assigned to them. The respondent no. 5 has also not mentioned the date or the manner in which the alleged harassment occurred except for a specific date given in the F.I.R i.e. 17.03.2013. This date of incident is doubtful as the respondent no. 5, at the time of cross-examination in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, stated that no such incident had occurred on 17.03.2013, but on 12.05.2013. Even for the incident, the manner in which she was alleged to be harassed by the applicants has not been disclosed. The applicants who are the married sisters-in-law of the respondent no. 5 and one of them is living in Delhi since the year 2002 and have not resided in the matrimonial house of respondent no. 5, hence they cannot be dragged in the criminal prosecution and in absence of any specific allegations against them, the same would amount to abuse of process of law.

12. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, it is found that the sections mentioned in the F.I.R under which the chargesheet has been filed against the applicants are not attracted and attributable to the applicants and as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases as mentioned above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

13. The chargesheet dated 14.03.2015 in Case Crime No. 153 of 2013, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Bihar, District Unnao and proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed as far as related to the applicants. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench