Umesh Maheshwari And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Others

Srivastava, Rishabh Raj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashwani Kumar, Naved Ali Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Praihar, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application is filed with the following prayer :- "Quash the impugned charge sheet bearing no.01 dated 31.5.2022, Charge Sheet No.02 dated 30.6.2022, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13.10.2022 as well as entire proceedings of the Case Crime No.300 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali City, District Hardoi."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the match of the marriage of Shobhit Maheshwari (son of the applicants) and Pakhi Agarwal (respondent no.3) was taken from the matrimonial site, i.e., Shaadi.com, thereafter, they decided to solemnize marriage and the marriage was solemnized on 2.3.2020 at Akshaypatra Mandir Lawn, Vrindavan, Mathura, which was was registered on 12.3.2020 before the Marriage Registrar, Hardoi. He further submits that son of the applicants and respondent no.3 - Pakhi Agarwal were working in the United States of America and as per their plan, they wanted to fly for 2 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 U.S.A. but due to Pandemic of Covid-19, they could not go to the U.S.A. He also submits that respondent no.3 was enjoying her matrimonial life but due to some misunderstanding on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged, however, dowry was never demanded either by the applicants or by their son.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27.5.2020, telephonic conversation was taken place in between Umesh Maheshwari - applicant no.1 and Atul Agarwal - informant, which was also recorded but in the telephonic conversation, no content was found related to the demand of dowry as well as victimization (typed copy of the conversation is annexed as Annexure No.6). He further submits that all these facts were not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted only after recording the statement of informant, his wife and daughter/respondent no.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahmood Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. N.C.T. Delhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2012 10 SCC 741 Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Dharalaxmi Narayan Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3682 and submits that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is having jurisdiction to examine the entire evidences collected by the Investigating Officer and, in case, it is found that criminal prosecution has been initiated on the basis of concocted facts, then entire proceeding alongwith the F.I.R. can be quashed. He further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed in the case of Kahkasan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Preeti Gupta (supra) that in the present era in the matrimonial disputes, in-laws are also being dragged on the basis of general allegations, however, in the present case, there is no allegation against the applicants for the alleged offences, therefore, present proceeding is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits 3 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 that detail investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of material evidences, charge sheet has been filed. He also submits that all these defence of the applicants can be considered at the appropriate stage, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate submits that after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and the evidences collected by the Investigating officer cannot be examined at this stage in the form of mini trial but he does not dispute the fact that in case, criminal prosecution has been initiated on the basis of fabricated case or with ulterior motive for vengeance and no case is prima facie made out after considering all the material evidences, then proceedings shall be quashed. He further submits that in the present case sufficient evidences were collected by the Investigating officer and the respondent no.3- Pakhi Agarwal has categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was being victimized for the demand of dowry. He also submits that telephonic conversation relied by the counsel for the applicants is not applicable at this stage as there is no certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is placed before this Court and the conversation was also not placed before the Investigating Officer, therefore, that was not considered, in such circumstances, both the applications are liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant material, it is evident that genesis of the prosecution in question is matrimonial dispute as marriage of son of the applicants and respondent no.3 was solemnized on 2.3.2020 but due to some misunderstanding, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged with the allegation that respondent no.3 was ousted by her in-laws on

27.5.2020. The evidences collected by the Investigating Officer clearly reveals that allegations were made against the husband (Shobhit Maheshwari) for demand of dowr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mahrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), Preeti Gupta (supra), Dharalaxmi Narayan (supra) 4 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 observed that now a days on the basis of exaggerated facts in-laws are also being implicated on the basis of general allegations and in this case, no specific allegations are found against the applicants against whom charge sheet was also filed by the Investigating officer, therefore, this Court is of the view that Investigating Officer committed error in filing charge sheet against the applicants.

8. In such circumstances, the present application is allowed and the impugned proceedings against the applicants is hereby set aside. December 4, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srivastava, Rishabh Raj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashwani Kumar, Naved Ali Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Praihar, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application is filed with the following prayer :- "Quash the impugned charge sheet bearing no.01 dated 31.5.2022, Charge Sheet No.02 dated 30.6.2022, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13.10.2022 as well as entire proceedings of the Case Crime No.300 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali City, District Hardoi."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the match of the marriage of Shobhit Maheshwari (son of the applicants) and Pakhi Agarwal (respondent no.3) was taken from the matrimonial site, i.e., Shaadi.com, thereafter, they decided to solemnize marriage and the marriage was solemnized on 2.3.2020 at Akshaypatra Mandir Lawn, Vrindavan, Mathura, which was was registered on 12.3.2020 before the Marriage Registrar, Hardoi. He further submits that son of the applicants and respondent no.3 - Pakhi Agarwal were working in the United States of America and as per their plan, they wanted to fly for 2 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 U.S.A. but due to Pandemic of Covid-19, they could not go to the U.S.A. He also submits that respondent no.3 was enjoying her matrimonial life but due to some misunderstanding on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged, however, dowry was never demanded either by the applicants or by their son.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27.5.2020, telephonic conversation was taken place in between Umesh Maheshwari - applicant no.1 and Atul Agarwal - informant, which was also recorded but in the telephonic conversation, no content was found related to the demand of dowry as well as victimization (typed copy of the conversation is annexed as Annexure No.6). He further submits that all these facts were not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted only after recording the statement of informant, his wife and daughter/respondent no.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahmood Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. N.C.T. Delhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2012 10 SCC 741 Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Dharalaxmi Narayan Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3682 and submits that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is having jurisdiction to examine the entire evidences collected by the Investigating Officer and, in case, it is found that criminal prosecution has been initiated on the basis of concocted facts, then entire proceeding alongwith the F.I.R. can be quashed. He further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed in the case of Kahkasan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Preeti Gupta (supra) that in the present era in the matrimonial disputes, in-laws are also being dragged on the basis of general allegations, however, in the present case, there is no allegation against the applicants for the alleged offences, therefore, present proceeding is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits 3 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 that detail investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of material evidences, charge sheet has been filed. He also submits that all these defence of the applicants can be considered at the appropriate stage, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate submits that after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and the evidences collected by the Investigating officer cannot be examined at this stage in the form of mini trial but he does not dispute the fact that in case, criminal prosecution has been initiated on the basis of fabricated case or with ulterior motive for vengeance and no case is prima facie made out after considering all the material evidences, then proceedings shall be quashed. He further submits that in the present case sufficient evidences were collected by the Investigating officer and the respondent no.3- Pakhi Agarwal has categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was being victimized for the demand of dowry. He also submits that telephonic conversation relied by the counsel for the applicants is not applicable at this stage as there is no certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is placed before this Court and the conversation was also not placed before the Investigating Officer, therefore, that was not considered, in such circumstances, both the applications are liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant material, it is evident that genesis of the prosecution in question is matrimonial dispute as marriage of son of the applicants and respondent no.3 was solemnized on 2.3.2020 but due to some misunderstanding, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged with the allegation that respondent no.3 was ousted by her in-laws on

27.5.2020. The evidences collected by the Investigating Officer clearly reveals that allegations were made against the husband (Shobhit Maheshwari) for demand of dowr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mahrotra (supra), Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), Preeti Gupta (supra), Dharalaxmi Narayan (supra) 4 A482 No. 5611 of 2023 observed that now a days on the basis of exaggerated facts in-laws are also being implicated on the basis of general allegations and in this case, no specific allegations are found against the applicants against whom charge sheet was also filed by the Investigating officer, therefore, this Court is of the view that Investigating Officer committed error in filing charge sheet against the applicants.

8. In such circumstances, the present application is allowed and the impugned proceedings against the applicants is hereby set aside. December 4, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench