# Gopal Shriwas & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties - **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 369 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-04-06 - **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 13132 of 2022 - **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gopal-shriwas-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49931 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 & 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition, 1961 Act-Quashing of entire criminal proceeding-mediation failed-victim was physically and mentally tortured on the pretext of payment of additional dowry-her mother-in law and sister in law snatched her jewellery and her husband and father-in law left her at her parental house until the said demand was fulfilled- victim has specifically made allegations against the applicants-two witnesses corroborated the allegations and evidence of the victim-plea of alibi of father-in law that he was on duty is immaterial as the complaint is not filed on the basis of single incident occurred on particular date-she was physically and mentally tortured continuously since longHence,it cannot be said that mere general allegations have been leveled against the applicants-No ground to quash the proceedings.(Para 1 to 13) The application is dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St. of Bih. & ors. (2022) 0 Supreme SC 117 ## Text 4 All. Gopal Shriwas & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 369 26. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 369 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Application u/s 482 No. 13132 of 2022 Gopal Shriwas & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Umesh Kumar Counsel for the Opp. Parties: G.A., Sri Mahabir Yadav A. Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 & 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition, 1961 Act-Quashing of entire criminal proceeding-mediation failed-victim was physically and mentally tortured on the pretext of payment of additional dowry-her mother-in law and sister in law snatched her jewellery and her husband and father-in law left her at her parental house until the said demand was fulfilled- victim has specifically made allegations against the applicants-two witnesses corroborated the allegations and evidence of the victim-plea of alibi of father-in law that he was on duty is immaterial as the complaint is not filed on the basis of single incident occurred on particular date-she was physically and mentally tortured continuously since longHence,it cannot be said that mere general allegations have been leveled against the applicants-No ground to quash the proceedings.(Para 1 to 13) The application is dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St. of Bih. & ors. (2022) 0 Supreme SC 117 (Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.) 1. Heard Sri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.476 of 2020 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Gopal Shriwas and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act to the extent of applicant no.1 and under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act to the extent of applicant nos.2 to 4, Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba pending before the Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Charkhari, Mahoba and also the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Criminal Revision No.48 of 2020 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Ramsevak and others) alongwith summoning order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Charkhari, Mahoba. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that applicant no.1 was married with opposite party no.2 with full love and affection and out of the wedlock a son Naman was born. After one year from the marriage opposite party no.2 demanded to live separately from his family at her parental house which was denied by applicant no.1 thereafter opposite party no.2 left the marital house on 04.04.2020 with her all belongings purchased by applicant no.1. On 29.09.2020 opposite party no.2 filed a complaint stating allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and one motorcycle and deposed falsely under Section 200 370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES CrPC. PW-1, Kallu of her caste and PW-2 brother of opposite party no.2 deposed a false and fabricated story under Section 202 CrPC and on the basis of that, the Judicial Magistrate summoned applicants accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.2 is father-inlaw, applicant no.3 is mother-in-law and applicant no.4 is the unmarried sister-inlaw (nanad) of opposite party no.2 who reside separately. Applicant no.2 being father-in-law has no concern with the alleged offence. He is driver in PWD Department and was on duty on 02.07.2020. Applicants are neither previously convicted nor wanted in any other criminal case and have no criminal history. They belong to a respectable family. Hence, the present application be allowed and the entire proceedings of the criminal complaint case and the order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision be set aside. 5. From the order sheet it is not known as to whether opposite party no.2 was served sufficiently or not. On 25.07.2022 an order for mediation was passed. It is not known to the Court as to whether in compliance of the said order Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the applicants or not. However, as per office report dated 02.11.2022 the Mediation Centre report was awaited and till now no report had been submitted. It appears that either the fee was not deposited by the applicants or the mediation or attempt to mediation remained failed. Hence, on 11.01.2023 learned counsel for the applicants argued the case at length. 6. The proceedings of the case in question was stayed on the assurance of the learned counsel for the applicants that the matter between the parties would be amicably settled and since 25.07.2022 the applicants are availing the stay order. 7. According to the victim, she was physically and mentally tortured on the pretext of payment of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law snatched her jewellery after birth of a son in 2019. After six months her father-in-law and husband left her at her parental house and since then they did not take her back until the said demand of dowry was fulfilled. Opposite party no.2 has further deposed that on 02.07.2020 her husband had come but abused and threatened to kill her. Rest two witnesses have also corroborated the allegations and evidence of opposite party no.2. The trial Magistrate has passed an exhaustive and speaking summoning order discussing all the facts and evidences available on record. Initially the Magistrate had summoned only husband but the criminal revision preferred by opposite party no.2 was allowed by the Sessions Judge and in compliance of the order of the revisional court dated 06.03.2021, rest of the accused persons were also summoned. So far as the alibi in respect of the accused applicant no.2, Ramsevak is concerned that on 02.07.2020 he was with the officer, this Court is of the view that the impugned complaint has not been filed only on the basis of single incident occurred on a particular date. As per version of the complaint and the evidence thereon it is the case of the complainant that she was physically and mentally tortured by the accused persons since long. It was a continuous process hence the certificate that on 02.07.2020 accused applicant Ramsevak was on duty is immaterial. Though a case under Section 9 of the 4 All. Gopal Shriwas & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 371 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by applicant no.1, Gopal Shriwas, husband of opposite party no.2 but in this regard no order sheet have been filed to know as to whether opposite party no.2 appeared there or not and as to whether the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Mahoba in order to settle the dispute or not. Sometimes husband files a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act only to show his bona fide. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117, in which it has been laid down that if general and omnibus allegations are levelled against the accused persons in respect of matrimonial dispute and no specific and distinct allegations have been made and it appears that the case is example of misuse of Section 498-A IPC which was aimed to prevent cruelty committed upon a woman by herself and her in-laws, the court would intervene. The Apex Court held in the recent matter matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever which has been resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives and if false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. 9. The Apex Court found that on that case none of the appellants had been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. In the cited case since no appeal was preferred by the husband hence the veracity of allegations made against him was not examined. 10. In this case opposite party no.2 has specifically alleged and has made allegations against applicant no.3 motherin-law and applicant no.4, sister-in-law (nanad) that they had taken her jewellery. She has specifically deposed that though all the applicants were demanding additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and one motorcycle but her husband had again visited her parental house on 02.07.2020 and had abused and threatened to kill her for that. It is nowhere mentioned that on 02.07.2020 her father-in-law Ramsevak had also visited her parental house. He might have been made accused for the offence committed by him when the complainant was at her matrimonial house with the applicants. So far as the role of father-inlaw is concerned it has been argued by the learned AGA that Ramsevak, fatherin-law of opposite party no.2 is a government employee. He is elder and responsible person of the family. It was his duty to solve the problem and to ensure that opposite party no.2 is not physically and mentally tortured. The victim has deposed that her father-in-law had attended the panchayat at her parental house and had assured to keep her quietly but he and her husband had left her at her parental house. 11. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that mere general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Applicants are not remote relatives and were not living separately. Facts of this case is quite different from the 372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES facts and evidence of the cited case. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to quash the proceedings. 12. The application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 372 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. Application u/s 482 No. 13242 of 2019 with Application u/s 482 NO. 30345 of 2021 Sh. Mohd. Ali Zafar ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Mehul Khare, Sri Pradeep Singh, Shri Umakant Uniyal (Sr. Advocate), Sri Ashok Mehta (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Opp. Parties: G.A., A.S.G.I., Sri Gyan Prakash, Sri Satish Kumar Rai, Sri Sudarshan Singh, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 21, 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 & 477A- The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 2(C), 13(2)/13(1)(d) , The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 and CCS Rules , The Cantonment Act, 2006 - Section 38 , The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 5, 6, 6A , The Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021 , The Cantonment Funds Service Rules, 1937 - unless the State Government gives its consent, the C.B.I. would not have the power for investigation of an offence in any area of the State Government .(Para - 27) (B) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants , The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Taking cognizance under Section 19 of PC Act - incriminating material should be placed before sanctioning authority in order to apply its mind and take a decision for grant of sanction - Distinction between - absence of sanction (entertained at the threshold ) and alleged invalidity on account of nonapplication of mind (entertained during trial). (Para - 34) Petitioner, a Veterinary Inspector, was officiating as Office Superintendent at Cantonment Board - another petitioner was a Pharmacist/Compounder-cum-Store Keeper at Central Government Hospital - joint surprise check conducted- gross irregularities found - Charges levelled against accused officials - corruption and forging and manipulating the records - resulted wrongful loss to Central Government - possible corresponding gain to accused - Charge-sheet, summoning order & entire proceedings of Special Case under challenge .(Para - 2,18) HELD:- Board granted a sanction for the petitioners' prosecution. Trial court will decide whether the material and evidence were placed before the authority to grant the sanction, which was refused earlier. Court does not find it appropriate to decide on affidavits in these proceedings. (Para - 34) Petitions dismissed. (E-7) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep S.