# Bhavesh Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 817
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 15302 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhavesh-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54742
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Matter pertains to legality of summoning order
arising out of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in
respect of vague allegations.

Headnotes
Matrimonial Dispute-Indian Penal Codesec. 498-A, sec 323, 506-Applicant No.1-
(husband) has died during pendency of present
case--rule of law requires that accused is visited
with specific allegations in criminal prosecutionspecific allegations require that date, time and
place of alleged offence is specified- general,
vague and omnibus allegations are made
against applicant Nos.2 to 6 in respect of an
offence under Section 498-A IPC-summoning
order and criminal proceedings are not tenableno allegation of any threatening-summoning
order
and
criminal
proceedings
quashed.
Application partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 40,221. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
817
facie, the offence is made out,
rather the allegations are specific against
the applicants, for which certainly the trial
is required.
27. In the subject matter of forgery,
the law is settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh
(supra), wherein it is provided that
complicity of the accused in case of forgery
will have to be addressed only after a
proper appreciation of evidence and such
appreciation of evidence can be done only
by
undertaking
the
initial
process.
Therefore, trial is the only process, by
which the evidence can be adduced and the
truth can be found out.
28. Supreme Court in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan
Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 has
categorically held that at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court
is not required to conduct the mini trial and
adduce evidence on record as it has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider whether any sufficient material is
available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required
to be tried or not. From a bare perusal of
the statements recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie the offence is
made out as there is sufficient material
available on record.
29. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court does not find any
merit in the case.

30. All the three applications are
accordingly rejected.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 817
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 15302 of 2018

Bhavesh Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashish Upadhyay, Jitendra Kumar, Vinod
Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, G.A., Sanjay Kumar
Gupta

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of summoning order
arising out of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in
respect of vague allegations.

Headnotes
Matrimonial Dispute-Indian Penal Codesec. 498-A, sec 323, 506-Applicant No.1-
(husband) has died during pendency of present
case--rule of law requires that accused is visited
with specific allegations in criminal prosecutionspecific allegations require that date, time and
place of alleged offence is specified- general,
vague and omnibus allegations are made
against applicant Nos.2 to 6 in respect of an
offence under Section 498-A IPC-summoning
order and criminal proceedings are not tenableno allegation of any threatening-summoning
order
and
criminal
proceedings
quashed.
Application partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177
2. Application U/S 482 No.- 6782 of 2023 (Viri
Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and
another); 2025:AHC:147074
3. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla,
(2005) 8 SCC 89
5. Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184
6. Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC
369
7. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others Vs. State of
Telangana & another, 2024 INSC 953
8. Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 127

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
vague and general allegations; to prevent abuse
of process of any court;

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicants(s) : Ashish Upadhyay,
Jitendra Kumar, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel
for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,
G.A., Sanjay Kumar Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned
counsel for Applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party
No. 2.

2. The present application has been
filed by Applicants for quashing the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.510 of
2017 (Arpita Tarmali Vs. Bhavesh Singh
and others) arising out of Case Crime
No.78 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationGeorge
Town,
District-
Allahabad
including impugned summoning order
dated 07.06.2017 passed by A.C.J.M.,
Room No.8, Allahabad.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
submits that Applicant No.1- Bhavesh
Singh (husband) has died during pendency
of present case and Applicant Nos.2 and 3
are
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law,
respectively and Applicant Nos. 4, 5 and 6
are sisters-in-law. It is submitted by learned
counsel for Applicants that the dispute
arises out of matrimonial dispute between
husband and wife and now husband has
died. A perusal of First Information Report
would go to show that allegations against
applicant Nos.2 to 6 are vague and general
in nature. Learned counsel for applicants
submits
that
in
pursuance
to
First
Information
Report,
allegations
were
investigated by Investigating Officer and
thereafter, a final report was submitted in
favour of applicants. The trial court did not
accept the aforesaid final report and has
passed summoning order dated 07.06.2017
against applicants Nos.2 to 6 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that
thereafter, the matter was taken as
complaint case and the statement of wife
was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and statements of father of the wife,
namely, Dr. Heeralal and one Ram
Shiromani were recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for applicants
submits that a perusal of aforesaid
statements
would
go
to
show
that
allegations against applicant Nos.2 to 6 are
wholly vague in nature and as such, the
aforesaid criminal proceedings are liable to
be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for opposite
party No.2 has opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for applicants and submits
that although he does not dispute the facts
that
Applicant
No.1-Bhavesh
Singh
(husband) has died, however, there are
allegations against Applicant Nos.2 to 6 in
the statements of wife and witnesses and as
such, they are liable to be proceeded with.
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
819
further submits that 'Stridhan' has not been
returned by family members even after the
death of husband and as such, the present
proceedings are tenable.

5. Initially, Opposite party No.2
has lodged First Information Report on
18.2.2015 at Police Station-Georgetown,
District-Allahabad under Sections 147,
148, 323, 377, 498A, 504, 506, 511 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant
Nos.1 to 6.

6. As per allegations in the First
Information Report lodged by opposite
party No.2, it is alleged that informant was
married to Bhavesh Singh on 14.5.2013 in
accordance with Hindu Marriage Rites. At
the time of marriage on demand of family
members of husband, father of informant
had given Rs.25 lakh as cash in Tilak and
Rs. 6 lakh by cheque for car and other gifts
for use at home having total amount of
Rs.10 lakh. The total expenditure at time of
marriage was to the tune of Rs.51 lakh. On
25.5.2013 when the informant reached her
matrimonial home, then Applicant No.3
and Applicant Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 stated that
father of informant had cheated them. The
husband
was
working
as
Assistant
Commissioner (Commercial Tax) and if the
marriage had taken place at some other
place they would have received Rs.2 crore.
From first day, family members of husband
were demanding dowry and were mentally
harassing informant. The husband of
informant also stated that mother of
informant was illiterate and husband started
pressurizing the informant for having
unnatural sex and when the informant
refuse the same she was assaulted. The
family
members
of
husband
were
demanding Rs.1.5 crore as dowry and
pressurizing the informant to arrange the
same from her father. On showing
incapacity to pay the dowry, applicants
started assaulting. The aforesaid incident
was informed to father of informant. On
15.1.2014, husband took the informant to
Varanasi at his apartment where husband
used to not permit the informant from
going out of apartment nor provided the
essentials to the informant.

7. It is also alleged in the First
Information Report that husband used to
take pictures of informant. The husband
after coming back from office used to see
adult movies and used to mentally,
physically
and
sexually
harass
the
informant. On coming to know about the
alleged incident, the father of informant
went to family members of husband, where
they misbehaved with father of informant
& abused him and further demanded dowry
to the tune of Rs.1.5 crore. Father-in-law,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to
entice the husband to demand dowry. It is
also alleged that husband used to threaten
with injury by fire if the demand for dowry
is not accepted and another marriage would
be made of the husband. The informant was
thrown out of the matrimonial house. On
25.3.2014
when
informant
went
to
Varanasi to her husband then again she was
assaulted. On 20.6.2014 when the sister of
informant went to house of husband at
Varanasi then the husband had abused and
assaulted in front of sister of the informant
and thereafter husband brought informant
to Sohabatiya Bagh. On coming to in-laws
house, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law
assaulted.
On
29.6.2014
aforesaid persons have taken all the
jewellery, clothes and thrown out the
informant from house. On 18 July, again
when the informant went to Varanasi then
husband abused, assaulted and thrown
informant out of house, as a result of same,
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant came back to parental home. On
15.2.2015, husband, father-in-law, motherin-law, sister-in-law and some other
persons came to house of father of
informant and demanded amount & abused.
Further stated that the property belonging
to informant would not be given back.

8. Investigation in pursuance to
above-mentioned First Information Report
was commenced and Investigating Officer
submitted final report in favour of
applicants on 25.8.2015. Opposite party
No.2 filed protest petition before the court
concerned in January, 2016. The court
concerned thereafter on 4.1.2017 passed an
order directing the matter to be treated as
complaint case. The complaint case was
registered as Complaint Case No.510 of
2017 (Arpita Tarmali Vs Bhavesh Singh
and
others).
Thereafter
statement
of
opposite party No.2 was recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C on 17.2.2017.

9. In statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C. informant / opposite party No.2 has
stated
that
marriage
took
place
on
24.5.2013 with Bhavesh Singh and after
marriage
when
informant
went
to
matrimonial home, family members of
husband were harassing the informant for
dowry. Father-in-law and mother-in-law
used to taunt the informant that their son
(husband) is working as Assistant Trade
Tax Commissioner and they would have
got Rs.2 crore dowry and the father of
informant has not given dowry. The
informant has further stated that she does
not know the name of elder sister-in-law.
Sister-in-law used to taunt for giving less
dowry. It was also stated by informant that
applicants used to assault the informant for
giving less dowry and use to abuse
informant and threatened for life. The
husband used to watch porn movies and
used to have forceful unnatural sex with
informant. The informant used to live for
six months in Varanasi and for six months
in Sohabatiya Bagh. Husband was posted in
Varanasi. On 28.6.2014 informant was
brought to her matrimonial home from
Varanasi and thereafter father of informant
was called for and was misbehaved by
husband, father-in-law & mother-in-law.
On 29.6.2014 applicants have thrown the
victim from the matrimonial home and
husband has filed a divorce suit. When
opposite party No. 2 went to Varanasi,
husband has misbehaved.

10. Thereafter, the statement of Dr.
HeeraLal Pasi was recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid witness in his
statement has stated that opposite party
No.2 was married on 24.5.2013 with
Bhavesh Singh. In the marriage by way of
gift Rs.51 lakh was expended. After
marriage when wife went to matrimonial
home then mother-in-law, father-in-law,
sister-in-law and husband used to taunt for
dowry and subjected opposite party No.2 to
physical and mental harassment. The
applicants also assaulted opposite party
No.2. Applicants claimed that husband was
Assistant Commissioner (Trade Tax) and as
such, Rs.2 crore dowry should have been
given in marriage. Opposite party No.2 also
informed him that husband used to watch
porn movies. Husband used to have
unnatural sex with opposite party No.2 at
Varanasi. Opposite party No.2 used to live
for six months at Varanasi and for another
six months at Sohabatiya Bagh. On
28.6.2014, opposite party No.2 was brought
from Varanasi to her matrimonial home
where she was visited with misbehaviour
by applicants. On 29.6.2014 applicants
after taking all the belongings of opposite
party
No.2
was
thrown
out
from
matrimonial home. On 18.7.2014, opposite
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
821
party No.2 again went to Varanasi where
the
husband
was
residing,
however,
husband has misbehaved with wife and has
indulged in forceful unnatural sex and as
such, opposite party No.2 came back.

11. In support of allegations in
complaint,
complainant
has
further
examined Shri Ramshiromani, who has
stated that he was mediator in marriage of
opposite party No.2. It is also stated that
father of opposite party No.2 has given a
cheque of Rs.6 lakh and a suit case with
cash in marriage. After marriage when
opposite party No.2 came back to her
parents house, she had informed with
regard to harassment on account of dowry
demand. Opposite party No.2 also informed
that husband used to have unnatural sex
with wife and when wife resisted the same,
husband used to harass and threatened.

12.
The
court
concerned
by
impugned order dated 7.6.2017 has directed
the summoning of applicant Nos.2 to 6
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

13. It is to be seen that Applicant
Nos.2 to 6 are also prosecuted under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Section
498-A
IPC
provides
penal
consequences where the husband or relative
of husband of a woman subjects such
woman to cruelty. Cruelty has been
defined in the explanation appended to
Section 498-A IPC. There are two
explanations provided under the aforesaid
provision for interpretation of the word
cruelty. The explanation (a) provides
that the cruelty would mean any wilful
conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical). The explanation (b) provides
cruelty would mean harassment of
woman where such harassment is with a
view to coerce her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on
account of failure of her or any person
related to her to meet such demand. The
provision of Section 498-A IPC prescribes
as under : -

 498A. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.

 Explanation.For the purposes of
this section, cruelty means (a) any
wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment
of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.

14. In the present case, there is no
allegation that Applicant Nos.2 to 6 have
offered any wilful conduct which is of such
a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of woman.
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2
has neither relied upon any grave injury
suffered by opposite party No.2 nor has
relied upon any medical report in this
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect. It is not in dispute between the
parties that no medical practitioner was
examined in support of complaint before
court concerned. It is not alleged in the
complaint nor any material circumstances
have been shown on behalf of opposite
parties that the conduct of Applicants was
of such a nature as is likely to drive the
wife to commit suicide.
15. It is further to be noted that as
per prosecution case, it is alleged that the
wife was being subjected to harassment by
applicant Nos.2 to 6 demanding amount to
meet unlawful demand. For the purpose of
prosecution under Section 498-A IPC, it is
imperative that the woman should be
subjected to cruelty by husband or relative
of husband of a woman. As per explanation
(b) of the aforesaid section, it is imperative
that the harassment of woman should be
with a view of coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person
related to woman to meet such demand.

16. A perusal of statement & First
Information Report of opposite party No.2
under Section 200 of the Criminal
Procedure Code before the court concerned
would go to show that the allegation
against the Applicant Nos.2 to 6 are to the
effect that family members of husband used
to harass her mentally and physically for
dowry. The aforesaid allegation do not
provide the material particulars as to the
manner in which the alleged offence has
occurred, vague and general allegations are
made against family members of husband.
The material particulars with regard to how
opposite party No.2 was physically and
mentally harassed are not provided, the
date and time of alleged incident is also not
stated nor the role of each of Applicant
Nos.2 to 6 is given in the statement.
17. It is also alleged in statement of
opposite party No.2 that the father-in-law
and mother-in-law used to taunt the
opposite party No.2 that the husband was
Assistant Commissioner and Rupees Two
crore dowry would have been received and
the father of opposite party No.2 has not
given anything. The law contemplates
demand of dowry as an offence, further the
cruelty or harassment to the wife by the
husband or others family members is also
held punishable. The aforesaid allegations
does not give detailed as to the date and
time when the aforesaid act was committed
by the accused person. The applicability of
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in
terms of Explanation (b) thereto, will come
into play when it is shown by material
particulars that harassment was being done
with a view to coerce wife or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand. In
Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177, the
Supreme court has observed that the
legislative intent is clear enough to indicate
in particular reference to Explanation (b)
that there shall have to be a series of acts in
order to be a harassment within the
meaning
of
Explanation
(b).
The
prosecution case in the present case does
not give material particulars of the alleged
harassment to the wife.

18. It is also alleged in the
statement of informant that on 20.8.2014
the
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law
misbehaved
with
the
father
of
the
informant. The nature of misbehavior has
neither been given by the informant as such
it cannot be stated that the aforesaid
allegation would come within the meaning
of harassment under the provisions of
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
823
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The
details
of
the
physical
and
mental
harassment is not stated in the statement of
informant and witnesses.

19. This Court in Application U/S
482 No.- 6782 of 2023 (Viri Singh and
another Vs. State of U.P. and another);
2025:AHC:147074 in respect of vague,
general and omnibus allegations has
observed as under :-

 24. Criminal law is set in
motion by lodging of First Information
Report
or
Complaint.
The
investigation/prosecution is carried upon to
find the truth in allegations. Setting in
motion criminal law entails consequences
including curtailing of liberty of individual.
The criminal law machinery is based on the
nature of allegations and the evidence
found
during
investigation/prosecution/enquiry.
It
is
important for prosecution to provide
precise details of allegations and evidence
to support the prosecution case.

 25.
Vague,
ambiguous
and
omnibus allegations can violate the right of
accused to process of law and fair trial. It is
fundamental principle of law that accused
be subjected to fair trial. Vague allegation
has significant effect on defence by
creating
uncertainty.
Without
specific
details and evidence, the defence of
accused may be prejudiced or the accused
may not be able to effectively defend
himself.

 26. Vague allegation can affect
the defence of accused by making it
difficult to formulate a targeted defence
strategy.
Without
clear
specifics
or
evidence to address, accused may struggle
to refute the allegations or present a
compelling
counter
argument.
Lawyers/Advocates
typically
rely
on
specific information to prepare their case,
such as dates, time, location, and witnesses.
Vague allegations lack these crucial details,
leaving the defence to speculate or
generalize their response, which can
weaken their defence in court. The mere
suggestion
of
wrong
doing,
without
substantiation, can lead to stigma and
prejudice against the accused, making it
harder for them to receive a fair trial.
Moreover, vague allegations may prolong
legal proceedings as the defence attempts
to gather more information to understand
the accusations fully.

20. In State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the
Supreme
Court
has
laid
down
the
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. One of the categories pointed out in
the said judgement is stated in para 102 (5)
which is quoted herein below :

 (5) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.

21. In law, prudent person is a
hypothetical person, who in the facts and
circumstances
would
conduct
in
a
reasonable, just and fair manner. In the
context of vague allegations at the stage of
cognizance or summoning of accused, it is
to be examined whether on the basis of
allegations in the complaint or the First
Information Report and the evidence
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
collected during investigation it can be said
that a prudent person would come to the
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The
insufficiency of ground for proceeding
against an accused may also arise when
material particulars and details in respect of
alleged offence are absent in prosecution
case. The sufficiency of material against an
accused is a condition precedent for
proceedings against an accused.

22. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89,
the Supreme Court has laid emphasis that
the complaint must contain material to
enable the court to make up mind for
issuing process.

 5. Section 203 of the Code
empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a
complaint without even issuing a process. It
uses the words after considering and
the Magistrate is of opinion that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding.
These words suggest that the Magistrate
has to apply his mind to a complaint at the
initial stage itself and see whether a case is
made out against the accused persons
before issuing process to them on the basis
of the complaint. For applying his mind
and forming an opinion as to whether there
is sufficient ground for proceeding, a
complaint must make out a prima facie case
to proceed. This, in other words, means that
a complaint must contain material to enable
the Magistrate to make up his mind for
issuing process. If this were not the
requirement, consequences could be farreaching. If a Magistrate had to issue
process in every case, the burden of work
before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom
process
is
issued
would
be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words if in the opinion of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding.
The
words
sufficient
ground for proceeding again suggest that
ground should be made out in the
complaint for proceeding against the
respondent. It is settled law that at the time
of issuing of the process the Magistrate is
required to see only the allegations in the
complaint and where allegations in the
complaint or the charge-sheet do not
constitute an offence against a person, the
complaint is liable to be dismissed.

23. The question therefore arises
what is the material which is required to be
before the court to issue process under
criminal law. The material facts and
particulars to constitute an offence are
required to be shown by prosecution before
the court proceeds to issue the process. The
material facts and particulars are those facts
which essentially would be required to
constitute an offence. These facts would
also include such facts which the law
recognizes
as
important
facts
for
proceeding with the trial of the case. These
facts are also necessary to bring fairness in
the process of trial. In this respect, Sections
212 and 213 of Cr.P.C. (Section 235 & 236
BNSS) also recognizes that the charge shall
contain particulars of time and place of
offence and the particulars of the manner in
which the alleged offence was committed.

24. The rule of law requires that
accused is visited with specific allegations
in criminal prosecution. Specific allegation
under criminal law would require that date,
time and place of alleged offence is
specified (more particularly when the
informant
is
victim
having
personal
knowledge), the details of person against
whom the offence is committed or the thing
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
825
in respect of which the offence was
committed. The allegations should also
describe the manner in which the offence is
committed. In Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti,
(2009) 10 SCC 184, the Honble Supreme
Court has emphasised the need for specific
and proper allegation in criminal law. In
this reference para 9 of the Neelu Chopra
Judgement (Supra) is quoted herein below
:
 9. In order to lodge a proper
complaint, mere mention of the sections
and the language of those sections is not
the be all and end all of the matter. What is
required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and
the role played by each and every accused
in committing of that offence.
25. In Achin Gupta Vs. State of
Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the Supreme
Court has laid emphasis that general and
sweeping
allegation
without
specific
instance is an abuse of process of court. In
this reference para 25 of Achin Gupta
(Supra) is quoted herebelow :
 25. If a person is made to face a
criminal trial on some general and
sweeping allegations without bringing on
record any specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the
process of the court. The court owes a duty
to subject the allegations levelled in the
complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find
out, prima facie, whether there is any grain
of truth in the allegations or whether they
are made only with the sole object of
involving certain individuals in a criminal
charge,
more
particularly
when
a
prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute

26. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana
& others Vs. State of Telangana &
another, 2024 INSC 953, the Supreme
Court has observed that vague allegation
may lead to misuse of legal process. In this
respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted herein
below:

 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.

 28. The inclusion of Section
498A of the IPC by way of an amendment
was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across
the
country,
accompanied
by
growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there
has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as
a tool for unleashing personal vendetta
against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if
not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of
legal processes and an encouragement for
use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or
her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands
of a wife. Consequently, this Court, time
and again, cautioned against prosecuting
the husband and his family in the absence
of a clear prima facie case against them.
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. A bare perusal of complaint
and statement of opposite party no 2 would
go to show that general, vague and
omnibus allegations have been made
against applicant Nos.2 to 6. It has not been
disclosed in complaint or in statement of
opposite party No.2 as to role assigned to
applicant Nos.2 to 6. Complaint or
statement of opposite party No.2 before the
trial court does not specify the details of
harassment as mere taunting by applicants
by stating that they would have received
dowry if the marriage was performed
elsewhere, may not amount to cruelty in
terms of Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. In the statement of
opposite party No.2, general, vague and
omnibus allegations are made with regard
to demand of dowry. Mere mention of the
language of section is not enough. The
substantive requirement is that the material
particulars
of
offence
found
during
investigation committed by each accused
and the role played by each accused in
committing the offence is provided.

28. In Mamidi Anil Kumar
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another, 2024 SCC Online SC 127, the
Supreme Court in the context of Vague,
General and Omnibus allegations has
observed as under :-

 14. In the considered opinion of
this Court, there is significant merit in the
submissions of the Learned Counsel for the
Appellants.
A
bare
perusal
of
the
complaint, statement of witnesses and the
charge-sheet shows that the allegations
against the Appellants are wholly general
and omnibus in nature; even if they are
taken in their entirety, they do not prima
facie make out a case against the
Appellants. The material on record neither
discloses any particulars of the offences
alleged
nor
discloses
the
specific
role/allegations assigned to any of the
Appellants in the commission of the
offences.

29. In view of the fact that general,
vague and omnibus allegations are made
against applicant Nos.2 to 6 in respect of an
offence
under
Section
498-A
IPC,
summoning order and criminal proceedings
are not tenable.

30. As per the summoning order
dated 7.6.2017, Applicant Nos.2 to 6 were
summoned under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act along with other section of
IPC. Although in prayer of present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
quashing is sought in respect of offence
under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act
also. Once applicant Nos.2 to 6 are not
summoned under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, no occasion arises to quash
the proceedings in aforesaid section.

31. Insofar as allegations with
regard to demand of dowry in violation of
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is
concerned, in the statement of opposite
party No. 2 except general and bald
allegations with regard to demand of dowry
against entire family members of husband,
there is no specific allegation. In this
respect, summoning order could not have
been issued in respect of offence under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

32. Applicant Nos.2 to 6 were also
summoned under Sections 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code. Applicants have put to
challenge
the
summoning
under
the
aforesaid sections on the ground that no
offence is made out. The offence under
Section 504 IPC prescribes that whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
827
provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other
offence,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both. The offence under
Section 504 IPC requires that there should
be intentional insult and thereby giving
provocation to any person intending or
knowing that such provocation will cause
him to break public peace or to commit any
offence. In the present case, there are no
material circumstances to show that there
was any intentional insult which would
give provocation to the wife to cause any
break of public peace or to commit any
offence, as such, the material ingredient for
offence under Section 504 IPC is not made
out from the prosecution case. Further,
Section 506 IPC provides punishment for
offence of criminal intimidation. The
offence of criminal intimidation has been
described under Section 503 IPC and the
same is quoted herein below :-

 "503.
Criminal
intimidation.-
Whoever threatens another with any injury
to his person, reputation or property, or to
the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause
that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act
which that person is legally entitled to do,
as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
 Explanation.-A threat to injure
the reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is interested, is
within this section."

33. An act of criminal intimidation
would occur when a person threatens
another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that person
is interested, with intent to cause alarm to
that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do,
or to omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat,
commits criminal intimidation. A perusal
of the statement of complainant before the
court concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
would go to show that there is no allegation
of any threatening against applicant Nos.2
to 6. Even complainant does not make any
specific allegation against applicants with
regard to any threatening and using of
abusive language. Complaint does not
specify as to what was the language used
by applicants. Further the date, time and
place of threatening by applicants has also
not been disclosed in the complaint. Even
otherwise, allegation in the complaint do
not constitute an offence under Sections
504 and 506 IPC. The court concerned
erred
in
issuing
summons
against
applicants under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

34. Applicant Nos.2 to 6 are also
summoned
under
Sections
323
IPC.
Section 323 IPC provides for offence of
causing hurt. The Hurt has been defined
under Section 319 IPC as whoever causes
bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt. The
complainant has specifically alleges that
accused has assaulted the complainant and
have thrown her out of matrimonial. The
statement
of
complainant/FIR
alleges
general, vague and omnibus allegation
against applicants with regard to assault
and there is no allegation in the FIR nor in
the statement of complainant before the
court concerned of causing any body pain,
disease
or
infirmity
to
complainant.
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2
has not relied upon any medical report nor
any doctor is shown to have been examined
before the court concerned with regard to
any bodily pain, disease or infirmity. In
view of aforesaid, no offence under Section
323 IPC is made out against applicant
Nos.2 to 6.

35. In view of above mentioned
reasoning and conclusion, the summoning
order dated 7.6.2017 as well as criminal
proceedings arising out of Complaint Case
No.510 of 2017 (Arpita Tarmali Vs
Bhavesh Singh and others) arising out of
Case Crime No.78 of 2015 under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed
in respect of applicant Nos.2 to 6, namely,
Ram Nihore Singh, Smt. Tara Devi, Smt.
Bhavna Devi, Richa and Monika.

36. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 828
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 23347 of 2025

Keshav Kumar @ Kalu & Anr.
.....Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Durga Prasad Tiwari, Shrawan Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
Issue for consideration
Applicability of two simultaneous proceedings in
pursuance
of
Section
138
of
Negotiable
Instrument Act as well as implication of the
same person under Section 506, 420 IPC on the
basis of same set of allegations.

Headnotes
Code of criminal Procedure-sec 300(1)-
Mandate of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is crystal
clear- if the applicants are ultimately found
guilty of dishonour of the instrument executed
by them- such act would fall within the ambit of
Section 420 IPC- for which they are already
facing prosecution in pursuance of present casebut before final outcome of Case u/s 138 N.I.
Act-the determination of such culpability would
be premature and proceeding with the trial
under Sections 506 and 420 IPC at this stage
would
serve
no
meaningful
purpose-
cognizance/summoning order- along with entire
proceedings-u/s 420, 506 IPC- set aside.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. J. Vedhasingh Vs. R.M. Govindan and others
[2022 0 Supreme(SC) 665]

List of Acts
1. Code of criminal Procedure;
2.Indian Penal Code
3. Negotiable Instrument Act

List of Keywords
Summon; under the obligation to pay the
amount in question to be realized in pursuance
of the instrument received by opposite party
no.2, Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. applicability
of two simultaneous proceedings