# Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 79
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 13185 of 2019
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janki-sharan-trivedi-aman-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50023
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
420, Dowry prohibition Act,1961 - Section
3/4 - false implication by way of general
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of
process of law - courts warned from
proceedings against the relatives and inlaws of the husband if no prima facie case
is made out against them.(Para -17 )

Applicant nos. 4 and 5 participated in
ceremony - no role in arranging marriage -
family members - were bound to accompany -
participate in related functions with her
brother and parents - general and omnibus
allegations
against
them
-
no
specific
allegation - applicants refused to perform
marriage - due to demand for dowry - F.I.R.
lodged - F.I.R challenged in High Court -
arrest of applicants was stayed - charge-sheet
-
Non-bailable
warrant
issued
against
applicants - quashing of. (Para - 3,4)

HELD:-No prima facie offence either under
Section 420 I.P.C. or under Section 3⁄4 D.P.
Act
made
out
.
Impugned
criminal
proceedings against applicant nos.4 and 5 is
nothing but misuse and abuse of legal
process. Entire criminal proceedings with
regard
to
applicant
nos.4
and
5
quashed.(Para - 8, 22)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
79
the notice is sent by registered post by
correctly addressing the drawer of the
cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue
of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso
to Section 138 of the Act stands complied
with. It is needless to emphasise that the
complaint
must
contain
basic
facts
regarding the mode and manner of the
issuance of notice to the drawer of the
cheque. It is well settled that at the time of
taking cognizance of the complaint under
Section 138 of the Act, the court is required
to be prima facie satisfied that a case under
the said section is made out and the
aforenoted mandatory statutory procedural
requirements have been complied with. It is
then
for
the
drawer
to
rebut
the
presumption about the service of notice and
show that he had no knowledge that the
notice was brought to his address or that
the address mentioned on the cover was
incorrect or that the letter was never
tendered or that the report of the postman
was incorrect. In our opinion, this
interpretation of the provision would
effectuate the object and purpose for which
proviso to Section 138 was enacted,
namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to
an honest drawer of a cheque and to
provide him an opportunity to make
amends."

11. The purpose of notice is to give an
opportunity to the drawer to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of the
receipt of notice so as to free from
prosecution
under
Section
138
of
Negotiable Instrument Act. Law in this
regard has been settled by the Apex Court
that at the time of taking cognizance of the
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the
Court is to only prima facie satisfy that a
case under said section is made out and the
mandatory
requirement
have
been
complied with. The drawer will be having
opportunity to rebut the said presumption
about the service of notice at the
appropriate stage of the trial.

12. Perusing this fact, learned trial
court while passing the impugned order has
held that notice dated 07.07.2018 and
27.07.2018 will be deemed to have been
issued within 30 days of dishonour of
cheque in dispute.

13. There is no infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the learned trial
court. The petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

Office is directed to present this order
to learned trial court.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 79
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 13185 of
2019

Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Birendra Singh, Sri Harikant Shukla, Sri
Virendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
420, Dowry prohibition Act,1961 - Section
3/4 - false implication by way of general
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of
process of law - courts warned from
proceedings against the relatives and inlaws of the husband if no prima facie case
is made out against them.(Para -17 )

Applicant nos. 4 and 5 participated in
ceremony - no role in arranging marriage -
family members - were bound to accompany -
participate in related functions with her
brother and parents - general and omnibus
allegations
against
them
-
no
specific
allegation - applicants refused to perform
marriage - due to demand for dowry - F.I.R.
lodged - F.I.R challenged in High Court -
arrest of applicants was stayed - charge-sheet
-
Non-bailable
warrant
issued
against
applicants - quashing of. (Para - 3,4)

HELD:-No prima facie offence either under
Section 420 I.P.C. or under Section 3⁄4 D.P.
Act
made
out
.
Impugned
criminal
proceedings against applicant nos.4 and 5 is
nothing but misuse and abuse of legal
process. Entire criminal proceedings with
regard
to
applicant
nos.4
and
5
quashed.(Para - 8, 22)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Km. Pooja & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Crl.
Misc. Writ Petition No.14500 of 2008

2. Smt. Mithilesh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.14929 of 2008

3. Kahkashan Kaussar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St. of
Bihar & ors., 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117

4. Lalita Kumari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2014) 2
SCC 1

5. S.A.F. for Manav Adhikar & anr. Vs U.O.I.,
Ministry of Law & Justice & ors., (2018) 10 SCC
443

6. Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472
7. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (2014) 8
SCC 273

8. Preeti Gupta & anr. Vs St. of Jharkhand &
anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667

9. Geeta Mehrotra & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2012) 10 SCC 741

10. K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telengana, (2018)
14 SCC 452

11. Pawan Kumar Bhalotiya Vs W. B.l, 2005 CrLJ
1810 (SC)

12. Premlata Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1991 SC 69

13. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs St. of Bihar,
2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117

14. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2012
(10) ADJ 464

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

1.
Heard
Sri
Harikant
Shukla,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Virendra
Singh, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A
for the State and perused the material
available on record.

2. From perusal of the records, it
transpires that opposite party no.2 is served
personally but he has not come forward to
oppose this application and neither opposite
party no.2 nor the State have filed any
objection/counter affidavit.

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C has been moved to quash the
proceeding of Case No.2119 of 2008 (CNR
No.UPMB040002302008, State Vs. Janaki
Sharan and others) arising out of Case
Crime No.2460 of 2008, under Section 420
I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba
4 All. Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
81
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mahoba and also to quash nonbailable
warrant
issued
against
the
applicants.

4. In brief, facts of the case are that
opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on
16.07.2008 against the applicants that
marriage of Kumari Anjana niece of
opposite party no.2 had been fixed with
applicant no.1, ring ceremony etc. were
performed and date of marriage was fixed
to solemnise marriage on 08.07.2008, but
the applicants refused to perform the
marriage for want of demand of dowry. The
applicants never demanded the dowry. The
present F.I.R was the result of malice. The
F.I.R was challenged in the High Court
through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.14500 of 2008 (Km. Pooja and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others), and the
arrest of the applicants had been stayed
vide order dated 14.08.2008 and vide order
dated 20.08.2008 passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.14929 of 2008 (Smt.
Mithilesh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and
others).
During
the
course
of
investigation the investigating officer (I.O.)
recorded statement of informant Narendra
Kumar Mishra and statements of hearsay
witnesses Smt. Gauri Dulhaina (mother of
informant) and Sushila Devi (wife of the
informant) and also of one Deoki Nandan
and other family members of the informant.
All the witnesses have supported the
prosecution story and after recording
evidence, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet
under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 3⁄4 D.P.
Act.

5. The concerned learned Magistrate
took cognizance without passing detailed
and
reasoned
order
on
21.09.2008.
Pursuant to the charge-sheet, process have
been issued, neither any summon nor any
notice has been served upon applicants.
Later on, bailable warrant has been issued
in February, 2019. It is true that the
marriage of Kumar Anjana D/o Mahendra
Kumar was proposed with applicant no.1,
Janaki Sharan but later on, the applicants
came to know that her family members are
of
criminal
background,
therefore,
applicant no.1 refused to marry with
Anjana. After refusal by applicant no.1,
they exerted much pressure for marriage,
rather they threatened to kill the applicant
no.1 and just to harass the applicants
lodged the F.I.R. in question.

6.
Being
aggrieved
with
false
prosecution by opposite party no.2 and
submission of charge-sheet, applicant no.1
moved
an
application
to
D.G.P.
(Complaint), Government of U.P. and
prayed for fair investigation, in which he
also mentioned the criminal history of
opposite party no.2 and his family.
Applicant no.4 is the married daughter of
applicant no.2 and applicant no. 5 is
unmarried daughter of applicant no.2.
Applicant no.6 belongs to same village, but
she has no relation with the family of
applicant nos.1 and 2, applicant nos.7 and 8
belong to other villages, they are relatives
of applicant nos.1 and 2. From perusal of
entire evidences it shows that applicants
have not committed any cheating/fraud.
Therefore, no offence under Section 420
I.P.C is made out against them. Applicant
Kamla Kant is villager, applicant Uma Kant
is maternal uncle and applicant Neeraj is
cousin, son of aunt (mausi) of applicant
no.1, thus they are not the family members
of applicant no.1, therefore, no offence
under the D.P. Act is made out against
them.

7. Dowry means "a demand made by
parents of either party to a marriage by any
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other person, to either party to marriage or
to any other person at or before or after
marriage as consideration of marriage of
said parties". In this case opposite party
no.2 has implicated the entire family,
villagers and other relatives of Janaki
Sharan, thus the allegations contained in
the F.I.R. do not come within the purview
of Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, 1961.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, it is quite clear
that no prima facie offence either under
Section 420 I.P.C. or under Section 3⁄4 D.P.
Act is made out. No useful purpose would
be served to continue with trial on the basis
of material available in the charge-sheet.

9.
The
applicants
are
innocent,
committed no offence and F.I.R. is the
result of malice of opposite party no.2, and
the prosecution is void ab initio, hence the
application be allowed and the entire
proceedings of the impugned criminal case
be quashed.

10. During the course of argument the
learned counsel for the applicants has
argued that at present this application
remains only in respect of applicant nos.4
and 5 and rest of the applicants have
appeared in the trial court and they are
ready to face the trial.

11. As per the F.I.R. and the
prosecution version marriage between the
niece of the informant Kumari Anjana had
been settled with Janki Sharan @ Aman,
applicant no.1 son of applicant nos.2 and 3
but after godbharai and before the tilak
ceremony, applicant no.2, Ram Bihari
Trivedi sent a letter dated 14.06.2008
demanding a santro car and additional
dowry and later on he also sent a notice
dated 19.06.2008 for not being ready to
solemnise the marriage of his son i.e.
applicant no.1 with Anjana, niece of the
informant.

12. The prosecution case is that the
reason behind the denial was that applicant
no.1, Janki Sharan had been successful in
getting entrance in MBA, hence the
applicants had become greedy and wanted
more and more dowry. According to the
prosecution applicant no.1 was provided a
golden ring and rest of the applicants were
also provided cash and clothes as a mark of
honour. The informant was continuously
meeting with the applicants to fix the date
of marriage but they troubled him for an
additional demand of car and valuable
things.

13. According to the prosecution, all
the applicants are jointly and severely
liable for the offence about which charge
sheet has been submitted against all the
accused persons.

14. In spite of service upon the
informant/opposite party no.2 neither he
appeared nor filed any counter affidavit nor
contested the application. However, the
application has been opposed by the
learned AGA on behalf of the State. During
course of argument learned counsel for the
applicants states that he does not press the
application on behalf of the applicants
except applicant nos.4 and 5. Hence, the
role of the applicant nos.4 and 5 has to be
scrutinized and it has to be seen as to
whether the criminal proceedings going on
against applicant nos.4 and 5 is the abuse of
process of Court and whether it is
necessary to give effect to any order under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and to
secure the ends of justice, this Court should
exercise
its
inherent
jurisdiction
for
quashing the criminal proceedings pending
4 All. Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
83
against applicant nos.4 and 5. In this regard
Section 482 CrPC has to be seen which
reads as under:-

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

15. Learned counsel for the applicants
has relied on the judgment Kahkashan
Kaussar @ Sonam and others Vs. State
of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme
(SC) 117, in which, niece, mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and brother-in-law were made
accused and general allegations were
levelled against them.

16. The Apex Court relying on the
citation Lalita Kumari Vs State of U.P.
and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and
another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of
Law and Justice and others, (2018) 10
SCC
443
quashed
the
criminal
proceedings.

17. The Apex Court held that now-adays, a tendency is increased to apply
provisions such as Section 498-A I.P.C. as
instrument to settle personal scores against
the husband and his relatives. The Apex
Court cited the previous judgments of
Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of
U.P. and another, (2018) 10 SCC 472;
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta
and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta
Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P.
and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and K.
Subba Rao Vs. State of Telengana, (2018)
14 SCC 452 and observed that false
implication by way of general and omnibus
allegations
made
in
the
course
of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
would result in misuse of process of law.
Therefore, the Apex Court by way of this
judgment has warned the courts from
proceedings against the relatives and inlaws of the husband if no prima facie case
is made out against them.

18. The Apex Court found that no
specific and distinct allegations had been
made against either of appellants. They had
not been attributed any specific role in the
cited case; the order of High Court of Patna
and the F.I.R. was set aside.

19. It was held in Pawan Kumar
Bhalotiya Vs. West Bengal, 2005 CrLJ
1810 (SC) that where the F.I.R. has been
lodged only to harass the applicants, the
criminal proceedings could be quashed
exercising the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

20. In Premlata Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1991 SC 69, it has been held that if
the High Court observed that if no useful
purpose would be served in continuing the
proceedings, the High Court can quash the
proceedings of the court below.

21.
In
view
of
the
judgment
pronounced by the Apex Court, the role of
applicant nos.4 and 5 has been deeply
scrutinized by this Court and thereafter this
Court comes to the conclusion that being
family members they had participated in
the ongoing ceremony but neither they had
any role in fixing the marriage between
Anjana and applicant no.1 nor they had
demanded any dowry nor they had
instigated rest of the applicants for making
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further demand of dowry nor there is any
proof of conspiracy by them in this regard
nor they were in any way beneficiary to the
alleged demand of dowry, simply because
they are the real sisters of applicant no.1,
they were bound to accompany and
participate in related function with her
brother and parents. There is general and
omnibus allegations against them. There is
no specific allegation against applicant
nos.4 and 5. On this score learned counsel
for the applicants has relied on Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar,
2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117 and Geeta
Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2012 (10) ADJ 464 which are fully
applicable to this case in support of both
the applicants.

22. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the view that the impugned
criminal proceedings against applicant nos.4
and 5 is nothing but misuse and abuse of
legal process and to secure the ends of justice,
it is mandatory to exercise the inherent power
of this Court under Section 482 CrPC and to
quash the entire criminal proceedings with
regard to applicant nos.4 and 5, Puja and
Meenu. Hence, this application is liable to be
allowed accordingly.

ORDER

23. This application under Section 482
CrPC is dismissed in respect of applicant
nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 on account of not
pressing the petition by the learned counsel
for the applicants.

24. This application is partly allowed
with regard to applicant nos.4 and 5, Puja and
Meenu and the entire criminal proceedings of
the aforementioned case in respect of
applicant no.4, Puja and applicant no.5,
Meenu are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 84
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 28521 of
2022

Anwar Saifi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Section 138 - Dishonor of cheque
for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the
accounts - when the notice is sent by
registered post by correctly addressing
the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory
requirement of issue of notice in terms of
Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the
Act stands complied with. (Para -15)

(B) The general clauses act, 1897 - section
27 - meaning of service by post - service
of notice has been effected when it is sent
to the correct address by registered post.
(Para - 15)

(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114
- when a notice is sent by registered post
and is returned with a postal endorsement
refused or not available in the house or
house locked or shop closed or addressee
not in station, due service has to be
presumed - once the notice is sent by the
registered post by correctly addressing the
drawer of cheque, the service of notice
deemed to have been effected.(Para -15,18 )