# Kallu Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 34434 of 2016
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kallu-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45782
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-
Section
498-A,
323,504,506-quashing of complaint- Factual
correctness or incorrectness or appreciation of
same cannot be made, neither a detailed inquiry
nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of
the allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while
examining
prayer
for
quashing
of
complaint-To prevent abuse of the process of
the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers under section 482 could quash the
proceedings but there would be justification for
interference only when the complaint did not
disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious
or oppressive.(Para 10)
In the instant case, the allegations made are not
general in nature rather the allegations are
specific. The applicants have harassed the
complainant and demanded dowry, even they
tried to cause injuries to the complainant. The
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborated the
allegations made by the complainant(Para 16)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person to lodge any criminal proceeding.
Moreso, complainant i.e. opposite party no.
2 is erstwhile Manager of Madarsa
concerned, having locus to initiate a
proceeding
regarding
fraudulent
appointment in above Madarsa. Hence, on
this score too, this application is not with
any merit.

7. Accordingly, this application merits
its dismissal. The application is dismissed
as such.
----------

(2020)06ILR A196
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 34434 of 2016

Kallu Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Adil Jamal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Rajesh Kumar, Shailendra Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-
Section
498-A,
323,504,506-quashing of complaint- Factual
correctness or incorrectness or appreciation of
same cannot be made, neither a detailed inquiry
nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of
the allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while
examining
prayer
for
quashing
of
complaint-To prevent abuse of the process of
the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers under section 482 could quash the
proceedings but there would be justification for
interference only when the complaint did not
disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious
or oppressive.(Para 10)
In the instant case, the allegations made are not
general in nature rather the allegations are
specific. The applicants have harassed the
complainant and demanded dowry, even they
tried to cause injuries to the complainant. The
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborated the
allegations made by the complainant(Para 16)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

1. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. Of U.P. LAWS (SC) (
2012) 10 53; (2012) 10 SCC 741

2. Binod Kumar & ors. Vs St. Of Bih. & anr.
(2014) 10 SCC 663

3. Smt. Nagawwa Vs Veeranna (1976) 3 SCC
736

4. I.O.C. Vs NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736

5. G.V. Rao Vs L.H.V. Prasad & ors. (2000) 3
SCC 693

6. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. Of Har. & ors. AIR
(2003) SC 1386

7. Arun Singh & ors. Vs St. Of U.P.; (2020) SCC
Online SC 164

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Applicants who are six in numbers,
have approached this Court by way of
filing an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in Complaint Case No.491/IX
of 2015, (Smt. Tarannum Khatoon @
Sanowar vs. Waris Khan & others) u/s 498A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act,
P.S. Naraini, District Banda including
summoning order dated 22.12.2015 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in the
aforesaid complaint case. Further prayer
6 All. Kallu Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
197
has been made to stay the proceedings of
the aforesaid case.

2. This Court, on 15.11.2016 has
passed the following order :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A.

Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that an opportunity be granted to the
parties for reconciliation / settlement of their
dispute by way of mediation. Applicants are
also willing to settle the matter through
mediation.

I
agree
with
the
submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicants.

The matter is referred to Mediation
& Conciliation Centre of this Court. The
applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
10,000/- by way of demand draft/pay order in
the name of Registrar General A/c, Allahabad
High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre
within a period of three weeks from today.
After deposit of the aforesaid money, office
shall send a notice to the opposite party no. 2
fixing a date to appear before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The
aforesaid amount shall be payable to the
opposite party no. 2 on his/her appearance
before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
The Mediation Centre will submit its report in
the matter within three months.

All the opposite parties may file
counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder
affidavit may be filed within two weeks
thereafter.

List this case on 27.2.2017 before
the appropriate Bench along with the report of
the Mediation Centre.

Till the next date of listing before
the Court, further proceedings against the
applicants in complaint case no. 491/IX of
2015, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naraini, District
Banda pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Banda shall remain stayed.

If the amount, as directed above, is
not deposited by the applicants within the
aforesaid period, the stay order shall
automatically come to an end and the office
shall immediately list this case for further
orders before the Court."

3. In pursuance of the abovementioned
order, the parties appeared before the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre wherein as per the
report of the Centre, the parties were entered in
an
interim
agreement
dated
19.2.2017,
however, as per the report dated 26.3.2017 of
the Centre, final settlement was not done
despite the interim agreement dated 19.2.2017,
and as such, the mediation was concluded
without any agreement/settlement.

4. Opposite party no.2, who is
represented
by
Shri
Rajesh
Kumar,
Advocate has opted not to file any counter
affidavit and the statement to this effect
was recorded and mentioned in the order
dated 8.1.2018 passed by this Court. For
reference,
the
said
order
is
quoted
hereinater :-

"Mediation was not successful.

Sri
Rajesh
Kumar,
learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party
no. 2 states that he will not file counter
affidavit
in
the
matter
although
Vakalatnama filed by him in the Registry
is not on record.

Office is directed to trace the
same and place on record.

List this matter on 31.1.2018
under the heading of final hearing.

Stay order, if any, shall continue
till the next date of listing."

5. I have heard Shri Adil Jamal,
learned counsel for the applicants, Shri
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned A.G.A.

6. Shri Adil Jamal, learned counsel
for the applicants has submitted that the
present application is filed by the relatives
of Waris Khan, who is the husband of
opposite
party
no.2
(complainant).
Applicants are father-in-law, mother-inlaw, elder brothers of husband of opposite
party no.2 and their respective wife.
Learned counsel further submitted that the
husband of opposite party no.2 is not
before this Court and he is facing criminal
proceedings. Learned counsel read out the
contents of the complaint, statement of the
complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. The
recorded statements of PW-1 and PW-2,
being father and mother of opposite party
no.2, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. as well as
the summoning order dated 22.12.2015
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistarte,
Banda and stated that the entire allegations
against the applicants are general and
vague, there is no specific details with
regard to nature of harassment and the role
played by each of the applicants in
harassing the complainants and even the
places
and
dates
when
the
alleged
harassment was made are not indicated in
the complaint as well as the statements
recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. In support
of his contention, learned counsel has relied
upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the matter of "Geeta Mehrotra vs. State
of U.P. reported in LAWS(SC) 2012 (10)
53; 2012 (10) SCC 741 and specifically
relied upon paragraph no.24, for reference,
same is reproduced hereinafter :-

"24.
However,
we
deem
it
appropriate to add by way of caution that
we may not be misunderstood so as to infer
that even if there are allegation of overt act
indicating the complicity of the members of
the family named in the FIR in a given
case, cognizance would be unjustified but
what we wish to emphasize by highlighting
is that, if the FIR as it stands does not
disclose specific allegation against accused
more so against the co-accused specially in
a matter arising out of matrimonial
bickering, it would be clear abuse of the
legal and judicial process to mechanically
send the named accused in the FIR to
undergo the trial unless of course the FIR
discloses specific allegations which would
persuade the court to take cognisance of
the offence alleged against the relatives of
the main accused who are prima facie not
found to have indulged in physical and
mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is
the well settled principle laid down in cases
too numerous to mention, that if the FIR
did not disclose the commission of an
offence, the court would be justified in
quashing the proceedings preventing the
abuse of the process of law.

Simultaneously, the courts are
expected to adopt a cautious approach in
matters of quashing specially in cases of
matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in
fact discloses commission of an offence by
the relatives of the principal accused or the
FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of
the accused at the instance of the
complainant, who is out to settle her scores
arising out of the teething problem or
skirmish of domestic bickering while
settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding."

(emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the abovementioned
submissions, learned counsel for the
applicants prayed that prayer made in the
present application be allowed and the
entire proceedings initiated against the
6 All. Kallu Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
199
applicants in the complaint case in question
including summoning order be quashed.

8. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no.2 vehemently opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the
applicants. He stated that the contents of
the complaint, statements recorded u/s
200 & 202 Cr.P.C. discloses offences u/s
498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4
D.P. Act. He further submitted that
learned court below has rightly taken
cognizance on the basis of the complaint
and the statements. He further submitted
that the exercise of inherent power to
quash proceedings is called for only in
case where the complaint does not
disclose
any
offence.
He
further
submitted that the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
should be sparingly invoked. The High
Court may not embark upon an inquiry
as to the probability, reliability or the
genuineness of the allegations made in a
complaint.

9. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of
Bihar and Another; 2014 (10) SCC 663
wherein the Apex Court while dealing
with the scope u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the proceedings has relied
upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs.
Veeranna reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736
and held in para 9 (ii) that when
proceeding could be quashed :-

"(ii) where the allegations made
in the complaint are patently absurd and
inherently improbable so that no prudent
person can ever reach a conclusion that
there
is
a
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused."

10. I have heard learned counsel
for the rival parties and perused the
record.

10. In the matter of Indian Oil
Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.;
(2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court has
summarized the principles relating to
the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C.
to
quash
complaints
and
criminal proceedings, which are as
under :-

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash complaints and criminal
proceedings have been stated and
reiterated by this Court in several
decisions.
To
mention
a
few--
Madhavrao
Jiwaijirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao
Angre
(1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau
of
Investigation
v.
Duncans
Agro
Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State
of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996)
8 SCC 164, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl
Chemicals
&
Pharma
(P)
Ltd.
Biological E. Ltd (2000) 3 SCC 269,
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State
of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC
645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque ( 2005) 1
SCC 122. The principles, relevant to
our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any offence or make out the case
alleged against the accused.

For
this
purpose,
the
complaint has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits
of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the
material nor an assessment of the
reliability
or
genuineness
of
the
allegations
in
the
complaint,
is
warranted while examining prayer for
quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or

(b) purely a criminal offence; or
(c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence.
A commercial transaction or a contractual
dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of
action for seeking remedy in civil law, may
also involve a criminal offence. As the
nature and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not."

 (emphasis supplied)

11. In view of the abovementioned
judgments passed by the Apex Court, the
High Court can quash a complaint only
when allegation made in the complaint
even they are taken at their face and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence to make out a
case alleged against the accused. While
dealing with the complaint case in regard to
the matrimonial disputes, the High Court
should be more cautious as held in Geeta
Malhotra (Supra) as well as in G.V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Others; (2000) 3
SCC 693; B.S. Joshi and others vs. State
of Haryana and others; AIR 2003 SC
1386. The Apex Court has held that in case
of general and vague allegations and in the
absence of specific allegations, the powers
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised,
however, the Apex Court has cautioned that
in case there are allegations of overact
indicating the complacity of the accused
named in the complaint or FIR, the High
Court should not interfere with the criminal
proceedings. In case, there is a clear abuse
of legal and judicial process and the
relatives of the main accused have been
prima facie implicated falsely, the High
Court should not shy away in exercising the
powers granted u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

12. In the light of abovementioned
legal position, I have to see whether on the
6 All. Kallu Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
201
basis of the complaint, statement recorded
u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence
is disclosed or not. The opposite party no.2
in her complaint has mentioned that :-

2. यह तक प्रातथगया को प्रातथगया के
तपिा द्वारा अपनी सािर्थ्ग के अनुसार िान-
िहेज िेकर ससुराल तििा तकया गया था
परन्तु उक्त सभी तिपक्षीगण तिये गये िहेज
से सन्तुष्ट नहीं हुये एिं प्रातथगया को गाली-
गलौज पर िारपीि करिे हुये 2 लाख रूपये
की और िहेज की िांग करने लगे। प्रातथगया
जब िायके ससुराल से िापस आयी िो
अपने िािा-तपिा ि पररिारीजन को सारी
बािें बिाई।

3. यह तक प्रातथगया के तपिा ने
पंचायि बुलाकर उक्त सभी तिपक्षीगणों से
हाथ जोड़कर प्राथगना तकया था तक िेरी
हैतसयि अब िो लाख रूपये िेने की नहीं है
एिं प्रातथगया को यह कहकर िोबारा तििा
कर तिया था तक कुछ तिन िें सब ठीक हो
जायेगा।

4. यह तक प्रातथगया जीिन जीने की
गरज से उक्त तिपक्षीगणों के द्वारा िहेज की
िांग को लेकर िी जा रही रूहानी ि
तजस्मानी िकलीिों को बिागश्त करिी रही
परन्तु तिपक्षीगण नहीं िाने।

5. यह तक तिनांक 29.09.2013को
सुबह करीब 10 बजे उक्त सभी तिपक्षीगण
उक्त िहेज की िांग को लेकर एकराय
होकर जान से िार डालने की तनयि से
प्रातथगया को िारने पीिने लगे। प्रातथगया की
तचल्लाहि सुनकर िुहल्ले के ि रास्ते से
तनकल रहे ििाि लोगों ने आकर प्रातथगया
की जान बचायी। लोगों के जाने के बाि
उक्त तिपक्षीगणों ने प्रातथगया को िात्र िन िें
पहने कपड़ों के बच्ों सतहि अपने घर से
यह कहकर तनकाल तिया तक जब िक
अपने तपिा से 2 लाख रूपये नहीं लाओंगी
िब िक हि िुम्हें अपने घर िें नहीं रखेगें
िभी से प्रातथगया िजबूरन अपने बच्ों सतहि
अपने तपिा के घर िें उपेतक्षि जीिन जी रही
है।

8. यह तक इसके बािजूि आपसी
ररश्तेिारों ने पुनः पंचायि कर कोतशश की
शायि
तिपक्षीगण
िान
जायें,
परन्तु
तिपक्षीगण नहीं िाने और अपनी तजि पर
िहेज की िांग पर अड़े हुये हैं िब िजबूरन
प्रातथगया िाननीय न्यायालय िें यह िाि िायर
कर रही है।

 (emphasis supplied)

13. In her statement recorded u/s
200 Cr.P.C. opposite party no.2 has
stated that :-

"सशपथ बयान तकया तक िेरी
शािी 11 जून 2007 को िाररस खां से हुई
थी। िाररस खां िैतजक गाड़ी चलािा है िैने
एक िुकििा घरेलू तहंसा का पहले तकया है
कोई अतधिक्ता नहीं तिल रहा है। िेरे पति
एिं ससुरालीजन कल्लू ससुर, सास रतहतसया
जेठ अलीि जेठानी रेहाना, आररि, शाबािा
िहेज के तलए प्रिातड़ि तकया। िहेज नहीं
िेने पर गाली गलोज िारपीि कर भगा
तिया। िेरे िो बच्े हैं जो िेरे पास रहिे है।
िहेज िें 2 लाख रूपये की िांग की गई। िैंने
सूचना पुतलस को िी एिं एस०पी० को ररपोिग
तकया। कोई कायगिाही नहीं हुई।"

 (emphasis supplied)

14. PW-1 - father of opposite party
no.2 has stated in his statement recorded
u/s 202 Cr.P.C. that :-
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

िैने अपनी पुत्री िरन्नुि खािून
उिग
सनोिर
का
तनकाह
तिनांक
11.06.2007 को श्री िाररस खां पुत्र कल्लू खां
तनिासी रंजीिपुर थाना नरैनी के साथ तकया
था। एिं अपनी हैतसयि के अनुसार िान-
िहेज िेकर लड़की को तििा तकया था। जब
िेरी पुत्री ससुराल गयी िो पति िाररस खां,
ससुर, कल्लू खां, सास रतहतशया, जेठ
अलीि, जेठानी ररहाना, एिं िूसरा जेठ
आररि ि जेठानी शाबिा तिये गये िान-
िहेज से सन्तुष्ट न होने के कारण िरन्नुि को
िार पीि गाली गलौज जैसी यािनाए िेकर
रू० िो लाख और चौथी िें लेकर िहेज के
रूप िें आने को कहे। जब िेरी पुत्री घर
आई िो सारी बािे बिायी। िुबारा जब पति
सतहि ससुराल जन पुत्री को लेने आये िो
िैने पंचायि जोड़कर कहा तक िैं अब और
िहेज िेने लायक नहीं हाँ अश्वासन के बाि
िैंने पुत्री को सब कुछ ठीक कुछ तिन िें हो
जायेगा। कह कर उनके साथ तििा कर
तिया। परन्तु उक्त ससुराली जन िहेज की
िांग को लेकर िेरी पुत्री को प्रिातडि करिे
रहे। एिं तिनांक 29.9.2013 को सुबह करीब
10.00 बजे उक्त ने एकराय होकर िेरी पुत्री
के ऊपर तिट्टी का िेल डालकर जान से िार
डालने की तनयि से िारने की कोतशश की
प्राथी की पुत्री को तचल्लाने पर िुहल्ले ि
रास्ते के राहगीर इकट्ठा होकर अतभ०गण
को ललकारा िब कहीं िेरी पुत्री की जान
बची। उसके बाि ससुरालीजन ने िेरी पुत्री
को िात्र पहने हुए कपड़ों िें बच्ों सतहि घर
से तनकाल तिया और कहा तक जब िक रू०
िो लाख और नहीं लाओगी िब िक हि
िुम्हें नहीं रखेंगे। िब से िेरी पुत्री िेरे घर पर
बच्ों सतहि रह रही है।

 (emphasis supplied)

15. PW-2 - mother of opposite party
no.2 in her statement has stated that :-

"िेरी पुत्री िरन्नुि का तििाह आज
से करीब 8 ििग पूिग िाररस पुत्र कल्लू तनिासी
रन्जीिपुर थाना नरैनी के साथ तकया था।
तिये गये िान िहेज से ससुरालीजन खुश
नहीं थे। तजस की िजह से पति िाररश, ससुर
कल्लू, सास रतहतसया, जेठ अलीि, जेठानी
रेहाना एिं िूसरा जेइ आररि ि जेठानी
साबिा आये तिन िार पीि करके िो लाख
रू० की िांग करिे थे पंचायि कर सिझाने
की कोतशश की पर नहीं िाने। आज से
करीब िो साल पूिग िरन्नुि को गाली गलोज
ि िारपीि करिे हुए तिट्टी का िेल ऊपर
डालकर जान से िार डालने की कोतशश
की। िरन्नुि के तचल्लाने पर िुहल्ले के लोगों
ने आकर बचा तलया। इसके बाि उक्त सभी
ससुरालीजन िेरी पुत्री को उसके बच्ों
सतहि िात्र पहने कपड़ो िें घर से तनकाल
तिया कहातक जब िक िहेज के िो लाख
रूपये नहीं लाओंगे िब िक िुम्हें अपने घर
िें नहीं रखेगें। िब से िेरे घर िें िरन्नुि अपने
बच्ों के साथ रह रही है। ससुरालीजन कोई
खोज खबर नहीं ले रहे हैं।"

 (emphasis supplied)

16.

In
the
abovementioned
complaint
and
statements,
it
has
specifically been mentioned that the
applicants
have
harassed
the
complainant/opposite party no.2 and
demanded dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
They even attempted to cause injuries
to opposite party no.2 earlier also,
however, due to negotiations, the
complainant was allowed to live with
them. There are specific allegations
against all the applicants that on
6 All. Pushpendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
203
29.9.2013, they have tried to cause
injuries to the complainant/opposite
party no.2 and they used to demand a
dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also caused
physical
injuries
to
victim.
The
statements
of
PW-1
and
PW-2
corroborated the allegations made by
the complainant/opposite party no.2.

17. The learned court below after
considering the contents of the complaint
as well as the statements recorded u/s 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. found sufficient ground for
proceedings and accordingly summoned all
the applicants u/s 204 Cr.P.C.

18. In the present case, the allegations
made in the complaint case are not general
in nature rather the allegations are specific
and even the earlier incident has also been
specifically mentioned in the complaint as
well as the statements. Present case is not a
case where it could be said that general
allegations are made against the applicants
rather this case falls under the categories of
cases where even the Apex Court in Geeta
Mehrotra (Supra) has directed to adopt a
cautious approach.

19. Recently, the Apex Court in Arun
Singh and others vs. State of U.P.; 2020
SCC
Online
SC
164
in
similar
circumstances has declined to quash
criminal proceedings u/s 3/4 D.P. Act. For
reference, para 30 of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinafter :-

"30. A reading of the above
provisions shows that essential ingredients
of the offence under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act are that the persons
accused should have made demand directly
or indirectly from the parents or other
relatives or guardians of a bride or a
bridegroom as the case may be any dowry
and/or abets the giving and taking of
dowry. The allegations of the F.I.R. quoted
hereinabove clearly go to show that a
demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs was made
by the appellants from the complainants
and thus it can not be said that no offence
under the Dowry Prohibition Act are made
out against the appellants. There being
direct allegations of demand of Dowry in
the
First
Information
Report,
the
allegations
prima-facie
constitute
a
commission of an offence under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and thus the charges
leveled against the appellants under
Section 3/4 of the said Act, are not liable to
be quashed." (emphasis supplied)

20. In view of above discussion, it is
my considered opinion that present case is
a case where the inherent powers should
not be used to stifle or scuttle the legitimate
prosecution.

21. In view of the above, the present
application being sans merit, accordingly
dismissed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A203
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 41546 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sri Anwar Hussain, Sri Sukhvir Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.