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

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 405
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 651 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maan-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54668
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Procedure
Code, 1860-Section 498 A- Quashing of
Proceedings - Complaint under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act - Marriage of Applicant No. 1 and Opposite
Party No. 2 declared null and void - Applicability
of Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act -
No demand or agreement for dowry
-
Allegations of harassment and torture vague
and general - Proceedings under Section 498A
IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections
323, 504, and 506 IPC not maintainable -
proceedings quashed.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Maan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
405
rules, unless such non-compliance, mistake,
error, irregularity or informality has
materially affected the result of the
election."

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid
provision, it shows that it is for dispute of
election of members.

8. Section 43 of the Act, 1916
pertains to election of President. Same is
being quoted hereinbelow:

"43. Election of President. - (1)
The President of the municipality shall be
elected on the basis of adult suffrage by the
electors in the municipal area.

(2) An outgoing President shall
be eligible for re-election.

(3) The provision of this Act and
the rules framed thereunder in relation to
election (including disputes relating to
election and electoral offences) of a
member shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in
relation to election of the President.

(4) If in a general election a
person is elected both as member and
President of the municipality or being a
member of the municipality is elected
President thereof in any bye-election, he
shall, except as provided in Section 49,
cease to be a member from the date of his
election as President.] "

9. From the perusal of Section 43(3)
of the Act, 1916, it again shows that Act
and the rules framed thereunder in relation
to election including disputes relating to
election and electoral offences of a member
shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to
election of the President, meaning thereby
that provision of Section 19 of the Act,
1916, so far as it pertains to election
dispute shall also be applicable in the
election dispute of President.

10. Therefore, in light of Section 19
and 43 of the Act, 1916, this Court holds
that provision of Section 19, so far as it
relates to election dispute shall also be
applicable for the dispute of election
and
electoral
offences
of
President.
Therefore, I found no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned order dated 16.07.2024.

11. Petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 651 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Mohammad Zakir, Nanhe Lal Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anand Kumar Singh, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Procedure
Code, 1860-Section 498 A- Quashing of
Proceedings - Complaint under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act - Marriage of Applicant No. 1 and Opposite
Party No. 2 declared null and void - Applicability
of Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act -
No demand or agreement for dowry
-
Allegations of harassment and torture vague
and general - Proceedings under Section 498A
IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections
323, 504, and 506 IPC not maintainable -
proceedings quashed.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Application U/s 482 No. 38288 of 2023
(Akhilesh Keshari & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.)

2. Shivcharan Lal Verma Vs St. of M.P. (2007)
15 SCC 369

3. P. Shivakumar & ors.Vs St. Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1404-1405 of 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir and
Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for
the applicants, Sri Anand Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
and Ms. Harshita, learned AGA for the
State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire
proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4827 of
2016 (Savita Devi Vs. Maan Singh and
others) under section 498A, 323, 504, 506
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sarai
Akil, District Kaushambi pending in the
Court of C.J.M. Kaushambi.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the instant complaint case has been filed by
the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein
that the marriage of applicant no. 1 with the
opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on
27.04.2012 and since after the marriage she
was
discharging
her
matrimonial
obligations up to four years without any
dispute. It is further alleged that the
applicant no. 1 was already married prior to
the marriage of the opposite party no. 2
with the applicant and out of that wedlock
there was a child born which is applicant
no. 3 herein. It is alleged in the complaint
that after four years of marriage the
applicant herein started harassing the
opposite party no. 2 for demand of dowry
and the applicants were not happy with the
gifts and dowry given by the father of the
opposite party no. 2. When the aforesaid
was intimated to the father by the opposite
party no. 2 he came and there was a
settlement and they continue to live
together. Subsequently, it has been alleged
that on 17.10.2016 all the opposite parties
forcibly taken her in a car and dropped her
at village Pure-Ghasiram and told that
unless she brings Rs. Two Lacs and a car
they will not take her back. It is further
alleged that the intimation of such incident
was given to the police, when no action
was taken the instant complaint case was
filed by opposite party no. 2 under section
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
Thereafter, the statements of witnesses
were recorded under section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under
section 200 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2
has alleged that the applicant no. 2 is the
first wife of the applicant no. 1 and she was
residing with her in the same house.
However, it has been stated that at the time
of marriage the applicant no. 1 had
misrepresented that his first wife had died.
It is further stated that she did not raise any
objection and did not file any case for such
misrepresentation as she thought that she
and the applicant no. 2 will live together as
sisters and wives of applicant no. 1. The
aforesaid
averments
have
also
been
supported by the witnesses Dharmraj and
Nirmala Devi and both of them had
categorically admitted that till four years
from the date of marriage i.e. 27.04.2012,
there was no dispute and there was no
demand of any sought by the applicants
herein, however the demands have been
raised by the applicants after four years of
marriage. Admittedly as per the complaint,
the date of marriage is 27.04.2012 and the
9 All. Maan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
407
date when opposite party no. 2 was finally
thrown out from the house is 17.09.2016
thereby till the end of the April, 2016 there
was no dispute of any kind with regard to
the dowry and there was no harassment for
dowry. Subsequent thereto the allegations
of demand of dowry has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that since from the facts,
admittedly the opposite party no. 2 is the
second wife of the applicant herein,
therefore, she is not competent to maintain
the proceedings against the applicant for
the offences under sections 498A IPC. So
far as the allegations of demand of dowry
and torture is concerned i.e. from the facts
as alleged there was no demand of dowry
or harassment up to four years of marriage
and subsequent thereto the allegations have
been made with regard to demand of
dowry. Since the marriage of opposite party
no. 2 with the applicant no. 1 was
admittedly a nullity, therefore, neither the
offence under section 498A IPC nor the
offence u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
would be attracted in the instant case. Even
if the demand has been made, the demand
would not be said to have been made in
connection with the marriage as the
marriage itself is a nullity, therefore,
learned counsel for the applicant seeks
quashing of the entire proceedings relying
upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 28.03.2024
passed in Application U/s 482 No. 38288
of 2023 (Akhilesh Keshari and others Vs.
State of U.P. and Another).

5. Per contra learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 submits that in her
statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. the
opposite party no. 2 has categorically stated
that the applicant no. 1 had misrepresented
her and on such misrepresentation she has
solemnized the marriage with applicant no.
1 and now her life has been spoiled by the
applicant no. 1 and as per the allegations as
made in the complaint she has been beaten
up by all the applicants, therefore, the
proceedings against the applicants so far as
the other offences under sections 323, 504,
506 IPC are maintainable against the
applicants and cannot be quashed.

6. Learned AGA also submits that
from the facts of the case since it was a
second marriage the offences u/s 498A IPC
as well as from the allegations as made the
provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act would
not be attracted in the instant case.

7. Having heard the rival submissions
as made by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has carefully gone through from
the record of the case, from the facts as
have been stated herein above it is crystal
clear that it was the second marriage of
opposite party no. 2 and there was no
dispute between the applicant no. 1 and
opposite party no. 2 till four years of such
marriage and the opposite party no. 2 was
fully aware about her second marriage
which is apparent from her own statement
recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. that despite
knowing the fact that it is her second
marriage she continued to live without
raising any objection from such marriage.
In view thereof since the marriage of
applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2
was a nullity the provisions of Section
498A IPC would not be attracted, the
aforesaid view is fully supported from the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P
(2007) 15 SCC 369. The view taken in
Shivcharan Lal Verma, has also reiterated
by the Apex Court in P. Shivakumar and
others Vs. State Criminal Appeal Nos.
1404-1405 of 2012. In Shivcharan Lal
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Verma (supra) the Apex Court has held as
under :-

"This matter had not been taken
up for hearing for this length of time as the
judgment of this Court holding Section 306
of the I.P.C. to be unconstitutional, was
under re-consideration by the constitution
bench. The constitution bench finally
disposed of the matter in criminal case No.
274 of 1984 and batch and set aside the
earlier judgment of this Court and held that
Section 306 is constitutionally valid. In
view of the aforesaid constitution bench
decision,
two
questions
arise
for
consideration in this appeal. One, whether
the prosecution under Section 498A can at
all be attracted since the marriage with
Mohini itself was null and void, the same
having been performed during the lifetime
of Kalindi. Second, whether the conviction
under Section 306 could at all be sustained
in the absence of any positive material to
hold
that
Mohini
committed
suicide
because of any positive act on the part of
either Shiv Charan or Kalindi.

There may be considerable force
in the argument of Mr. Khanduja, learned
counsel for the appellant so far as
conviction
under
Section
498A
is
concerned, inasmuch as the alleged
marriage
with
Mohini
during
the
subsistence of valid marriage with Kalindi
is null and void. We, therefore, set aside
the conviction and sentence under Section
498A of the I.P.C. But so far as the
conviction under Section 306 is concerned,
the evidence of the three witnesses already
referred to, make it absolutely clear that it
is on account of torture by both Kalindi
and Shiv Charan that Mohini committed
suicide inside the house of Shiv Charan in
another room. The learned sessions judge
as well as the High Court have appreciated
the evidence of the aforesaid three
witnesses and on going through the
evidence of these three witnesses, we do not
find any error committed by the courts
below either in the matter of appreciation
or in their approach relating to the
evidence in question. We, therefore, do not
find any infirmity with the conviction of the
appellants under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
So far as the sentence is concerned, they
have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years but having
regard to the facts and circumstances of
this case, we reduce the sentence to five
years. This appeal is accordingly disposed
of. Bail bonds of the appellants would
stand cancelled, and they must surrender to
undergo the remaining period of sentence."

8. And in P. Shivakumar (supra) the
Apex Court has held as under:-

"Undisputedly,
the
marriage
between the appellant No.1 and PW-1 has
been found to be null and void. As such,
the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C.
would not be sustainable in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case
Shivcharan Lal Verma's case supra. So
far as the conviction under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is
concerned, the learned trial judge, by
elaborate reasoning, arrived at after
appreciation of evidence, has found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
In
an
appeal/revision, the High Court could have
set aside the order of acquittal only if the
findings as recorded by the trial court were
perverse or impossible."

9. In view of the categorical finding
recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court the
proceedings under section 498A IPC by the
second wife is not maintainable. So far as
the proceedings under section 3/4 D.P. Act
9 All. Sanjeev Chaddha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
409
is concerned, it would be relevant to take
note of the provisions of section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act which reads as
follows:-

"2. Definition of "dowry".- In
this Act, "dowry" means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly-

(a)by one party to a marriage to
the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party
to a marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any other
person, at or before [or any time after the
marriage][in connection with the marriage
of the said parties, but does not include]
dower or mahr in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat)
applies."

10. From the plain reading of the
aforesaid provision the dowry means any
property or valuable security given or
"agreed to be given" in connection with
the marriage of the parties.

11. However, in the entire complaint
the allegations of demand of dowry which
have been made that has neither given nor
agreed to have been given, therefore, the
considered opinion of this Court the
provision of section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act would also not attract in the instant
case. So far
as
the allegations of
harassment and torture are there with
regard to the same it would be relevant that
there is no specific allegation, and only
general and vague allegations have been
made by opposite party no. 2 without there
being any specific issue, who actually and
when had assaulted the opposite party no.
2, therefore, in the considered opinion of
the Court offence u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC are
also not attracted in the instant case.

12. In view thereof the instant
application is allowed and the entire
proceeding of the instant case are hereby
quashed.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 409
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1488 of 2020

Sanjeev Chaddha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Avanish Kumar Shukla, Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dinesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Section - 406 - Application u/s
482 - for quashing of impugned Charge-sheet as
well as summoning order - FIR - complainant
alleged that his elder brother has committed
criminal breach of trust that he has not returned
Rs. 2.20 Lakh given him on different dates -
court
finds
that,
neither
there
was
an
'entrustment' nor any proof of 'dishonestly
misappropriated' nor there was any evidence
regarding violation of any legal contract and
none of ingredient of offence of criminal breach
of trust is made out - therefore, the impugned
criminal proceeding appears to be initiated by
the complainant only to put pressure on his
elder bother to negotiate since there is a Will
wherein the complainant is not a beneficiary -
held, it is a fit case to invoke inherent
jurisdiction where criminal proceedings was
initiated only for purpose of wrecking vengeance
- hence - entire proceedings arising out of
charge-sheet, as well as impugned summoning