Noorul Huda and Anr. … v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and another

1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya and Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The present application is filed with the prayer to set aside the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No.90 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.487 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station - Raunahi, District - Ayodhya.

3. As per the prosecution case, 'Nikah' of the private respondent was solemnized with son of the applicants on 11.4.2019, namely, 2 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 Arab Mohammad @ Sonu and after 'vidai', she came at her in- laws house and started residing with her husband as well as the applicants but after sometime, her husband and applicants started victimizing her for dowry, in the meantime, she conceived and a daughter - Noor Fatima was born. The husband of the private respondent as well as other family members were harassing her for the demand of dowry, therefore, she requested them that her father is not in position to fulfil any extra demand of dowry then she was beaten by her husband. Thereafter, compromise between private respondent and her husband was taken place at Police Station and she was allowed to stay at the house of the applicants alongwith her husband but the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and Maruti Car was continued. On 10.9.2023, when private respondent was at her parents house, her husband made a call on phone in the presence of her family members and had given 'teen talak', thereafter, immediately on 11.9.2023, she made online complaint to the police and on 14.9.2023, online application was also given to Mahila Thana, Nagar, Ayodhya. On

16.9.2023, both the parties were called by the S.H.O. but applicants as well as their son did not come to the Police Station then F.I.R. was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute and son of the applicants beating and abusing them for pension fund and also insisting for transfer the house as well as property in his name, otherwise, he will shoot them. He also submitted that on 18.4.2022 applicants already filed a Declaratory Suit No.228/2022 with the prayer that their son may be restrained from interference in their peaceful life as well as property, the said suit was allowed ex-parte on 3.4.2024. During the pendency of aforesaid suit, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged and the relevant facts provided to the 3 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 Investigating Officer related to the pendency of suit, which was not considered and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 25.11.2023. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2012 10 SCC 741 and submitted that applicants are parent-in-laws of the private respondent and there is a matrimonial dispute in between the private respondent and her husband. He further submitted that by way of decree passed by the learned court below, permanent injunction has already been issued restraining the son of the applicants to interfere in their peaceful life as well as property, therefor, impugned proceedings may be quashed in relation to the applicants.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that after 'Nikah' private respondent came to the house of the applicants, which is situated at Village Saidpur, Tehsil Sadar, Sultanpur but she was being victimized by her husband as well as the applicants and several times, she was ousted by them alongwith her minor daughter. Due to interference of the police, compromise was taken place in between the private respondent, her husband and applicants, as a result, she again started living at the house of the applicants but the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and Maruti Car was continuously made by the applicants as well as their son. Private respondent was at her parental house only with the intention to save her Nikah as on the insistence of applicants, her husband was threatening the private respondent for divorce. They further submitted that declarative suit was filed by the applicants only with intention to victimize the private respondent as well as her minor daughter. The statement of the 4 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 independent witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, there is specific allegations against the applicants. They also submitted that defence of the applicants related to the declarative suit cannot be considered at this stage and the law relied by counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the present case.

6. The husband of the private respondent, namely, Arab Mohammad s/o Noorul Huda r.o Safulllganj, Saidpur, Gosainganj, Sultanpur (Adhaar Card No.477173162733, Mobile No.7860843892) is also present before this Court and stated that most of the times, he resides at the house of his maternal grand- mother situated in Village Sangaon, P.S. Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. He also stated that he also resides at his native place at Village Saidpur, District - Sultanpur and he is not aware about the suit filed by his parents/applicants.

7. Considering the entire evidences collected by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the private respondent, as the applicants are present before this Court and their demeanor shows that they are in collusion with the husband of the private respondent. The statements of the private respondent as well as independent witnesses, namely, Raju Shameem Khan, Aneesh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, they categorically supported the prosecution version. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is not applicable in the present case as it reveals that after marriage private respondent came to the house of the applicants, where after sometime, her husband as well as applicants started victimizing. The applicants filed suit for declaration/permanent injunction with the fact that their son is beating them and life threat was also given by saying 5 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 that he will shoot them, in case, they will not transfer property in his favour and same was partly allowed by the court below with the observation that son of the applicants, namely, Arab Mohammad will not interfere in the peaceful life as well as property of the applicants but there is no evidence that applicants moved any complaint to the police about the beating or giving threat of shooting, therefore, present application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present application is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed.

9. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. December 19, 2025 Gaurav (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya and Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The present application is filed with the prayer to set aside the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No.90 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.487 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station - Raunahi, District - Ayodhya.

3. As per the prosecution case, 'Nikah' of the private respondent was solemnized with son of the applicants on 11.4.2019, namely, 2 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 Arab Mohammad @ Sonu and after 'vidai', she came at her in- laws house and started residing with her husband as well as the applicants but after sometime, her husband and applicants started victimizing her for dowry, in the meantime, she conceived and a daughter - Noor Fatima was born. The husband of the private respondent as well as other family members were harassing her for the demand of dowry, therefore, she requested them that her father is not in position to fulfil any extra demand of dowry then she was beaten by her husband. Thereafter, compromise between private respondent and her husband was taken place at Police Station and she was allowed to stay at the house of the applicants alongwith her husband but the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and Maruti Car was continued. On 10.9.2023, when private respondent was at her parents house, her husband made a call on phone in the presence of her family members and had given 'teen talak', thereafter, immediately on 11.9.2023, she made online complaint to the police and on 14.9.2023, online application was also given to Mahila Thana, Nagar, Ayodhya. On

16.9.2023, both the parties were called by the S.H.O. but applicants as well as their son did not come to the Police Station then F.I.R. was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute and son of the applicants beating and abusing them for pension fund and also insisting for transfer the house as well as property in his name, otherwise, he will shoot them. He also submitted that on 18.4.2022 applicants already filed a Declaratory Suit No.228/2022 with the prayer that their son may be restrained from interference in their peaceful life as well as property, the said suit was allowed ex-parte on 3.4.2024. During the pendency of aforesaid suit, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged and the relevant facts provided to the 3 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 Investigating Officer related to the pendency of suit, which was not considered and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 25.11.2023. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2012 10 SCC 741 and submitted that applicants are parent-in-laws of the private respondent and there is a matrimonial dispute in between the private respondent and her husband. He further submitted that by way of decree passed by the learned court below, permanent injunction has already been issued restraining the son of the applicants to interfere in their peaceful life as well as property, therefor, impugned proceedings may be quashed in relation to the applicants.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that after 'Nikah' private respondent came to the house of the applicants, which is situated at Village Saidpur, Tehsil Sadar, Sultanpur but she was being victimized by her husband as well as the applicants and several times, she was ousted by them alongwith her minor daughter. Due to interference of the police, compromise was taken place in between the private respondent, her husband and applicants, as a result, she again started living at the house of the applicants but the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and Maruti Car was continuously made by the applicants as well as their son. Private respondent was at her parental house only with the intention to save her Nikah as on the insistence of applicants, her husband was threatening the private respondent for divorce. They further submitted that declarative suit was filed by the applicants only with intention to victimize the private respondent as well as her minor daughter. The statement of the 4 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 independent witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, there is specific allegations against the applicants. They also submitted that defence of the applicants related to the declarative suit cannot be considered at this stage and the law relied by counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the present case.

6. The husband of the private respondent, namely, Arab Mohammad s/o Noorul Huda r.o Safulllganj, Saidpur, Gosainganj, Sultanpur (Adhaar Card No.477173162733, Mobile No.7860843892) is also present before this Court and stated that most of the times, he resides at the house of his maternal grand- mother situated in Village Sangaon, P.S. Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. He also stated that he also resides at his native place at Village Saidpur, District - Sultanpur and he is not aware about the suit filed by his parents/applicants.

7. Considering the entire evidences collected by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the private respondent, as the applicants are present before this Court and their demeanor shows that they are in collusion with the husband of the private respondent. The statements of the private respondent as well as independent witnesses, namely, Raju Shameem Khan, Aneesh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, they categorically supported the prosecution version. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is not applicable in the present case as it reveals that after marriage private respondent came to the house of the applicants, where after sometime, her husband as well as applicants started victimizing. The applicants filed suit for declaration/permanent injunction with the fact that their son is beating them and life threat was also given by saying 5 A482 No. - 9889 of 2024 that he will shoot them, in case, they will not transfer property in his favour and same was partly allowed by the court below with the observation that son of the applicants, namely, Arab Mohammad will not interfere in the peaceful life as well as property of the applicants but there is no evidence that applicants moved any complaint to the police about the beating or giving threat of shooting, therefore, present application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present application is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed.

9. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. December 19, 2025 Gaurav (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench