# Devinder Mohan Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 830
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 10810 of 2018
- **Bench:** Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devinder-mohan-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54209
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
law, therefore, the said impugned Transfer Order is liable to be set aside and the instant petition
deserves to be allowed.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 is hereby set aside and the instant
petition is allowed.

23. Delving into the importance of the issue raised in the instant matter and taking note of the
grave fact that such practice is being followed by most of the District Courts across the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue an appropriate
circular in this regard.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 830
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10810 of 2018

Devinder Mohan Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the applicants being relatives of husband on the basis of general and omnibus allegations
of dowry demand and harassment, in absence of specific, cogent, and prima facie material, amounts to an
abuse of process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
proceedings, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 - D.P Act, 1961 - s. 3/4 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 173(8) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The instant
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been instituted by the applicants, who are the parents-in-law of
victim, seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of
2014, registered u/ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and s. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act - The First Information Report was lodged by father of victim alleging dowry demand and
harassment by husband and his family members, including the present applicants, both in
Varanasi and during their stay in Australia - Upon initial investigation, no prima facie material
was found against the applicants and they were exonerated; however, pursuant to oral
directions of superior police authorities, further investigation was conducted and a
supplementary charge-sheet filed implicating them - It has further been brought on record that
matrimonial discord existed between the husband and wife, culminating in dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce granted by a competent court in Australia - The allegations
against the applicants are general and omnibus in nature, without attribution of any specific
overt act.
2 All. Devinder Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
831
Held: Taking in view the allegations as made in the first information report, the statement of informant and
other witnesses as recorded by the previous investigating officer and non establishment of prima facie case
against them, Mazeed statements of witnesses by the subsequent investigating officer, it appears that there
are general and omnibus allegations against all the members of the family of the husband, those are vague
and frivolous leading to a situation where it is hard to specify the role of each accused in furtherance of the
offence - Where there is absence of clear allegation against the relatives of the husband, it simply amounts to
an abuse of process of law - Thus, application allowed, entire criminal proceedings quashed. [Paras
14, 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr; (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of
UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741; Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others v. State of Bihar and other 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 141 - referred to

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; D.P Act, 1961; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
s. 482 Cr.P.C.; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Charge-sheet; Cognizance order; Summoning order; First
Information Report; Indian Penal Code; D.P. Act; Applicants (parents-in-law); Matrimonial dispute; Dowry
demand; Harassment; General and omnibus allegations; Absence of specific allegations; Lack of prima facie
case; Initial investigation; Further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.; Supplementary charge-sheet; Exoneration;
Oral instructions of Superintendent of Police; Statements of witnesses; Mazeed statements; Lack of cogent
evidence; Divorce decree by foreign court (Australia); Application allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Application U/s No. - 10810 of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Case
Crime No. 344 of 2014.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Applicant:
Mukhtar Alam
Advs. for the Opposite Party:
Ashish Kumar Gupta, G.A., Rupak Chaubey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.)

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yawar Mukhtar, learned counsel
for the applicants.

previous date, none was present on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Several time, the
opposite party no.2 was granted time to file counter affidavit, if any, but no counter affidavit

4 Present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the
prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 7243 of 2015 ( State Versus Indrajeet
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of 2014, pending in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, Charge sheet No. 513 of 2017 dated 20.11.2027
as well as order of cognizance dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi

5. Facts in brief are that first information report under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511,
108 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, was lodged by the informant against the applicants at the
police station Sigra, District Varanasi as Case Crime No. 344 of 2014 on 23.08.2014 at about 7.10
A.M. with the allegation that the applicants and the husband of daughter of the informant, namely,
Aman Jot Singh Vasoor and other family members subjected her to harassment in relation to
demand of dowry. The applicants also subjected her to harassment and when the victim was in
Australia with her husband, the applicants were also living there in Australia. After investigation,
no any material was found against the applicants to establish prima facie case, as a result, the first
investigating officer closed the investigation, but on the oral instructions given by the
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, investigation was handed over to some other investigating
officer, who filed the charge sheet against the present applicants also and on the basis of which
cognizance was taken by the learned trial court on 20.06.2015 and summoning order was passed by
the learned court.

6. It is submitted that applicants are Saas and Sasur of the victim who were named in the first
information report by the father of the victim with false allegation of demand of dowry and
harassment at Varanasi and in Australia, though there was no any such incident committed by the
applicants with the daughter of the informant. The daughter-in-law was living in Australia with her
husband. There was matrimonial dispute between both of them that was the reason, a divorce
petition was filed in Civil Court at Australia in which decree of divorce was also granted by the
family Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 and relation between the husband and wife (victim) came
to an end. No any injury was caused to the victim by these applicants. There are general allegations
of demand of dowry and harassment with her regarding which there is no any material to support.
The first investigating officer did also not find any reliable material against the applicants to
establish the commission of the offence as stated in the first information report, but as per oral
direction given by the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, investigation was handed over to some
other investigating officer and charge sheet was filed. He also submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court
has held in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others that
where there are general allegations made against the relatives and there is no any other cogent
evidence regarding demand of dowry and harassment, it will become misuse of the process of law
and such practice be checked to prevent the abuse of the process of law, therefore request to quash
the entire proceedings of the case against the applicants.

7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case, the
applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of the informant. In the first
information report, the allegation regarding demand of dowry and harassment of daughter of
informant was made against seven persons including the present applicants. Other accused persons,
namely Aman Jeet Singh (husband), Gurmeet (Jeth), Sumit Saluja (Jethani), Indrajeet Man (Mama)
and Romi Sahani (Mami). The charge sheet against other co-accused persons was filed separately
by the investigating officer S.I. Abhai Raj Mishra and implication of the present applicants was
2 All. Devinder Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
833
found to be false. This fact gets mention in the charge sheet No. 51-A/17 dated 07.05.2017.
Consequently at the instance of oral instructions given by the Senior Superintendent Police,
Varanasi investigation was taken over by other S.I. ,namely, Gopal Ji Gupta on 01.06.2017 as
mentioned by him in SCD No. 28. He after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet
against the present applicants also after writing Mazeed statements of same witnesses, which shows
that when the statement of the informant and other witnesses were recorded by the previous
investigating officer S. I. Ahhay Raj Mishra, no prima facie case was found to be made out against
the present applicants, as a result, their implication being false, they were exonerated and charge
sheet was filed on 07.05.2017 against other accused persons.

8. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact regrading
general allegation of demand of dowry and harassment to the victim by the applicants and decree as
passed by the Civil Court, Australia as aforesaid and the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid cases.

9. It is to note that once final report is filed by the investigating officer after investigation
being completed, further investigation can be done by the police under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. and
supplementary police report may be filed if the investigation officer gets sufficient material in this
regard.

10. In the present case the subsequent investigating officer acted upon oral direction given by
the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi and thereafter, he recorded Mazeed statements of witnesses
whose statements were already recorded by 1st I.O. and then supplementary charge sheet was filed.
The contents of the first information report did not disclose any specific allegation against the
present applicants regarding harassment of the victim and in relation to the demand of dowry, but
there are general allegations against all the members of the family including Jeth, Jethani Mama
and Mami, who may have no any interest in the demand. The decree of divorce between the
husband and wife as granted by the Civil Court, Australia by order dated 27.11.2015 also shows
that there was matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife that was the reason they moved
divorce petition in Australia, as a result, marriage was dissolved and now they are living separately.

11. In the case of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand and Anr; (2010) 7 SCC
667, it was observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section
498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We
come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment are also a matter of serious concern".

12. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.(2012) 10 SCC 741, it was
observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have
quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been
roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.

Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the
judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

13. Likewise Apex Court has made similar observations in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
others Versus State of Bihar and other 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141.

14.Taking in view the allegations as made in the first information report, the statement of the
informant and other witnesses as recorded by the previous investigating officer and non
establishment of the prima facie case against them, Mazeed statements of the witnesses by the
subsequent investigating officer, it appears that there are general and omnibus allegations against
all the members of the family of the husband, those are vague and frivolous leading to a situation
where it is hard to specify the role of each accused in furtherance of the offence. Where there is
absence of clear allegation against the relatives of the husband, it simply amounts to an abuse of
process of law.

15. In view of law as laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, if the allegation made
against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution and therefore, it would be
unjust, if the applicants are forced to go through the process of the learned trial court, since the
criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflict severe scar upon the accused and such an
exercise must therefore, be discouraged.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is allowed
and entire proceeding against the applicants in criminal case No. 7243 of 2015 ( State Versus
Indrajeet Singh and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of 2014,
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, Charge sheet No. 513 of 2017 dated
20.11.2027 as well as order of cognizance dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Varanasi are quashed.

----------
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
(2026) 2 ILRA 835
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 18266 of 2025

Pradeep Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly treated the application moved under Section 175(3) BNSS as a
complaint instead of directing police investigation?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3), 175(4), 210, 528, 529, - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154(3), 156(3), 202(1), 173(2), 190 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section - 27: - Application under Section 528 BNSS - for quashing the impugned order - whereby the
learned CJM in an arbitrary, manner treated the application moved under section 175(3) BNSS as a complaint,
while the matter required police investigation - allegations of grievous assault leading to amputation -
applicant pleaded that custodial interrogation, recovery of motorcycle, weapon, and spot inspection required -
Magistrate found no such evidence recoverable after lapse of time and held complainant had full knowledge of
facts - reliance placed on Sukhwasi, Ram Babu Gupta, Lala Ram - Court finds that, principles governing
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. still apply under Section 175(3) BNSS, though procedure now requires affidavit and
inquiry - Magistrate has discretion, not bound to order FIR in every case - held, order treating application as
complaint is valid - hence, application is dismissed. (Para - 13, 18, 19, 20)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007 (59) ACC 739 / (2007) 6 ALJ 424 (DB).
Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P., (2001) ACC 201 (Full Bench).
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287.
Lala Ram v. State of U.P., 2021 (1) ADJ 145.
Suresh Chand Jain (SC).
Mohan Shukla v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC).
Ram Sabad v. Sessions Judge, Bahraich (Allahabad HC).
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

LIST OF ACTS
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
BNSS - Cr.P.C. - Magistrate's discretion - complaint - investigation - affidavit - frivolous applications - police
apathy - cognizable offence - judicial review - delay - collection of evidence - physical evidence - recovery of
blood-stained soil - legal or factual infirmity - jurisdictional error - perversity in the order.

CASE ARISING FROM