# Mohd. Ashraf & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 583
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 19062 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-ashraf-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52245
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- (Indian
Penal Code-1860 Sections-498-A, 323,
504,
506)-Facts-trial
Court
took
cognizance and summoned the applicants
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act-Marriage of
applicant
no.1
and
complainant
was
solemnized about 5 years ago and despite
making an averment that she has suffered
repeated cruelty and there were repeated
demand of dowry, detail of not a day month
or year has been mentioned. Statement of
complainant and witnesses appear to be
similar
without
any
specific
allegation
against any of applicants specifically in
regard to relatives of applicant no.1 i.e.
applicants no. 2 to 8-There is nothing about
nature of abusive language or there was
any element of being likely to incite the
person insulted to commit breach of peace
at least qua to applicants no. 2 to 8Ingredients of referred offences are not
made out against applicants no. 2 to 8.
(Para 14, 16 21 & 23)

Application partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583

16. In view of above, the application
is allowed. Impugned charge sheet No. 162
of
2023,
cognizance
order
dated
08.12.2023 and summoning order dated
29.01.2024, arising out of Case Crime No.
0140 of 2023 (State vs. Atma Prasad Singh
and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506
IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District
Prayagraj, pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15,
Prayagraj, are hereby quashed. A cost of
Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on complainant,
i.e.,
Pradhanpati
for
misleading
and
influencing
the
investigation
and
interrupting the inspection proceedings.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 583
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 19062 of 2024

Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Sri
Shubham Prakash Gupta

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- (Indian
Penal Code-1860 Sections-498-A, 323,
504,
506)-Facts-trial
Court
took
cognizance and summoned the applicants
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act-Marriage of
applicant
no.1
and
complainant
was
solemnized about 5 years ago and despite
making an averment that she has suffered
repeated cruelty and there were repeated
demand of dowry, detail of not a day month
or year has been mentioned. Statement of
complainant and witnesses appear to be
similar
without
any
specific
allegation
against any of applicants specifically in
regard to relatives of applicant no.1 i.e.
applicants no. 2 to 8-There is nothing about
nature of abusive language or there was
any element of being likely to incite the
person insulted to commit breach of peace
at least qua to applicants no. 2 to 8Ingredients of referred offences are not
made out against applicants no. 2 to 8.
(Para 14, 16 21 & 23)

Application partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited: -

1. A.M. Mohan Vs St. Represented by SHO &
anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339

2.Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St. of
Bih. & ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599

3. Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472,

4. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & anr., (2014) 8
SCC 273,

5. Preeti Gupta & anr. Vs St. of Jhar. & anr.,
(2010) 7 SCC 667

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

7. Priyanak Jaiswal Vs The St. of Jhar. & ors.,
2024 INSC 357

8. Achin Gupta Vs St. of Har., 2024 0 INSC 369

9. Mohammad Wajid & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2023 INSC 683

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Applicant no.1 before this Court is
husband of opposite party no.2 whereas
applicants no. 2 to 8 are his close relative
including some women family members.

2. Opposite party No.2 got married
with applicant no.1 on 30.03.2017 and it
appears that there were some matrimonial
dispute between them and thereafter in the
year 2022, she left her matrimonial house
allegedly either on her own will or by force
and went to her parental house alone
without her 2 sons.

3.

In
aforesaid
circumstances,
opposite party no.2/complainant has lodged
an FIR on 25.02.2023 bearing FIR No.
0045/2023 against all applicants alleging
that they have committed offence under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and for reference
relevant part of FIR is quoted below :-

"ननिेदन है कक प्रािानी का ननकाह
ददनािंक 30.03.2017 को मौ० अशरि पुत्र
मौलाना अनिार ननिासी ग्राम खिूरी िाना
पररक्षक्षर्र्ढ, स्िला मेरठ के साि हुआ िा।
स्िसमें प्रािानी की बेबा मााँ ने लर्भर् 10
लाख रूपये खिा ककये िे। लेककन ककये र्ये
खिे से प्रािानी की पनर् मौ० अशरि, ससुर
अनिर, सास श्रीमनर् रसशदा, िेठ रासशद एििं
कारी सास्िद एििं स्िठानी खदीिा एििं एि
नन्द्द मूहम्मदी ि नन्द्द मूहम्दी ि छोटी
नन्द्द उम्मेहानी ि बडी नन्द्द मूहम्मदी खुश
नहीिं िे र्िा ननकाह के र्ुरन्द्र् बाद से
प्रािानी की ससुराल के उपरोक्र् सभी लोर्ो
ने प्रािानी से आय ददन 5 लाख रुपये नर्द
ि एक बुलेरो कार की मािंर् करनी शुरु दी
िी प्रािानी से आये ददन र्ाली र्लोि ि
मारपीट करर्े िे और प्रािानी को िान से
मारने की िमकी देर्े िे अपनी दहेि की
मािंर् पूरी न होने के कारण अब से करीब
10 oct, 2022 को मेरा पनर् मौ० अशरि
मुझे मेरे घर पर छोड कर र्या और दोनो
बच्िे अपने साि ले र्ये िे िब भी मै या
मेरी मम्मी, यदद मेरे, पररिार िाले नाससर
एि हासशम ले िाने के सलए कहर्े है। र्ो
मेरा पनर् कहर्ा है। कक अर्र र्ू मेरे यहााँ
पर आयेर्ी र्ो हम र्ुझे िान से मार
डालेर्े अर्ः श्रीमान िी से कानूनी कायािाही
करने की कृपा करे।"

4. On basis of above referred FIR,
investigation was conducted and statement
of complainant and other witnesses were
recorded which are mentioned below :-

"बयान र्िाह रादहना पत्क्नी थि०
आबबद नन० ग्राम अिराडा िाना मुिंडाली
स्िला मेरठ उम्र करीब 55 िषा ने अपनी
बेटी द्िारा सलखाई र्यी एिआईआर का
समिान करर्े हुये बर्ाया कक मै ग्राम
अिराडा िाना मुिंडाली मेरठ की रहने िाली
हूाँ मैने मेरी लडकी कमरिह का ननकाह
करीब 5 िषा पूिा ग्राम ग्राम खिूरी मे
अशरि पुत्र मौलाना अनिार ननिासी ग्राम
खिूरी िाना पररक्षक्षर्र्ढ, स्िला मेरठ के
साि ककया िा। शादी के बाद कुछ ददन
र्क र्ो सब कुछ ठीक िलर्ा रहा किर
उसके बाद मेरी लडकी के ससुराल िाले
आये ददन अनर्ररस्क्र् दहेि को लेकर
7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585
मारपीट ि र्ाली र्लौि करर्े रहर्े िे। मेरी
लडकी के दो बच्िे है। मैने उसके
ससुरालिालो को कािी समझाया लेककन हर
बार िो मेरी बेटी को मेरे घर पर छोड िार्े
और इस बार र्ो कािी समय से छोडकर
र्ये है और र्ब से लेने नहीिं आये है। और
िब मेरी बेटी िोन पर अपने बच्िो को
लेने की बार् करर्ी है र्ो इसको िान से
मारने की िमकी देर्े है इसीसलए मेरी बेटी
ने अपने ससुरालिालो के खखलाि िाना मे
ररपोटा देकर मुकदमा सलखाया िा िो बार्
सही िी िह मैने आपको बर्ा दी है। यही
मेरा बयान है।
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

नकल बयान पीडडर्ा अन्द्र्र्ार्
िारा 161 CrPC...... बयान अन्द्र्र्ार् िारा
161 सीआरपीसी व्यान पीडडर्ा कमरिह
पत्क्नी अशरि नन० अिराडा िाना मुिंडाली
मेरठ सम्बस्न्द्िर् मु0अ0स0 45/2023 िारा
498A/323/504/506 भादवि ि 3/4 दहेि
अचि० िाना मुण्डाली मेरठ बयान पीडडर्ाः
कमरिह पत्क्नी अशरि नन० अिराडा िाना
मुिंडाली मेरठ ने पूछने पर बर्ाया कक मेरा
नाम कमरिह है। मेरी उम्र करीब 22 िषा
है। मेरी शादी करीब 5 साल पहले अशरि
पुत्र मौलाना अनिार ननिासी ग्राम खिूरी
िाना पररक्षक्षर्र्ढ, स्िला मेरठ के साि हुई
िी। कुछ ददन र्क र्ो मेरी ससुराल िालों
ने ठीक रखा लेककन कुछ ददन बाद ही
दहेि को लेकर मेरे साि मारपीट ि र्ाली
र्लौि करने लर्े। इसी बीि मेरे दो बच्िे
हुये। मेरे पनर् मौ० अशरि, ससुर अनिर,
सास श्रीमनर् रसशदा, िेठ रासशद एििं कारी
सास्िद एििं स्िठानी खदीिा एि नन्द्द
मूहम्मदी ि नन्द्द मूहम्दी ि छोटी नन्द्द
उम्मेहानी ि बडी नन्द्द मूहम्मदी मुझसे
खुश नहीिं िे। और मुझसे दहेि मार्र्े िे।
कई बार ये र्ुझे मारपीट करके मेरे घर
छोड आर्े और मेरे घरिालों ने कई बार
समझा बुझाकर मुझे मेरी ससुराल में भेि
ददया। लेककन हर बार की र्रह इस बार भी
इन लोर्ो ने समलकर मेरे साि मारपीट की
और मुझे िान से मारने की िमकी दी और
मुझे मेरे मायके छोड र्ये र्ब से न र्ो
कोई लेने आया है और न ही मुझसे कोई
िोन पर बार् करर्ा है। यह बयान मैं
अपनी मिी से बबना ककसी दबाि के दे रही
हूाँ।
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

बयान र्िाह- नाससर पुत्र औसाि
ननिासी अिराडा िाना मुण्डाली मेरठ के
द्िारा अपने बयान दिा करार्े हुये बर्ाया
कक मेरी भािंिी कमरिहााँ की शादी िषा
2017 में अशरि पुत्र मौलाना अनिार
ननिासी खिूरी िाना परीक्षक्षर्र्ढ से हुई िी
शादी में करीब 10 लाख रुपये खिा ककये
र्ये िे लेककन शादी के खिा से 1. पनर्
अशरि पुत्र मौलाना अिार 2. रशीदा पत्क्नी
अनिार 3. रासशद पुत्र अनिार 4. कारी
सास्िद 5. खदीिा 6. अनिार 7. मुहम्मदी 8.
उम्मेहानी नन०र्ण ग्राम खिूरी िाना
परीक्षक्षर्र्ढ मेरठ खुश नहीिं िे र्िा ननकाह
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
के र्ुरन्द्र् बाद से कमरिहााँ दहेि में 5
लाख रुपये नर्द ि एक बुलेरो कार की
मािंर् करर्े र्िा आये ददन र्ाली र्लोि ि
मारपीट करर्े िे और िान से मारने की
िमकी देर्े िे अपनी दहेि की मािंर् पूरी न
होने के कारण मौ० अशरि कमरिहााँ को
घर पर छोड कर र्या िा और कमरिहााँ के
दोनो बच्िे अपने साि ले र्ये िे िब भी
मैं र्िा मेरा भाई हासशम र्िा मेरी बहन
रादहना लोर् कमरिहााँ को ले िाने के सलए
कहर्े र्ो अशरि कहर्ा िा कक अर्र र्ू
मेरे यहााँ पर आयेर्ी र्ो हम र्ुझे िान से
मार डालूिंर्ा। स्िसके सम्बन्द्ि में कमरिहााँ
ने मुकदमा सलखाया र्या िा यही मेरा
बयान है।
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

बयान र्िाह .... हासशम पुत्र
औसाि ननिासी अिराडा िाना मुण्डाली
मेरठ के द्िारा अपने बयान दिा करार्े हुये
बर्ाया कक मेरी भािंिी कमरिहााँ की शादी
िषा 2017 में अशरि पुत्र पुत्र मौलाना
अनिार ननिासी खिूरी िाना परीक्षक्षर्र्ढ से
हुई िी शादी में करीब 10 लाख रुपये खिा
ककये र्ये िे लेककन शादी के खिे से 1.
पनर् अशरि पुत्र मौलाना अिार 2. रशीदा
पत्क्नी अनिार 3. रासशद पुत्र अनिार 4. कारी
सास्िद 5. खदीिा 6. अनिार 7. मूहम्मदी 8.
उम्मेहानी नन०र्ण ग्राम खिूरी िाना
परीक्षक्षर्र्ढ मेरठ खुश नहीिं िे र्िा ननकाह
के र्ुरन्द्र् बाद से कमरिहााँ दहेि में 5
लाख रुपये नर्द ि एक बुलेरो कार की
मािंर् करर्े र्िा आये ददन र्ाली र्लोि ि
मारपीट करर्े िे और िान से मारने की
िमकी देर्े िे अपनी दहेि की मािंर् पूरी न
होने के कारण मौ० अशरि कमरिहााँ को
घर पर छोड कर र्या िा और कमरिहााँ के
दोनो बच्िे अपने साि ले र्ये िे िब भी
मै र्िा मेरा भाई नाससर र्िा मेरी बहन
रादहना लोर् कमरिहााँ को ले िाने के सलए
कहर्े र्ो अशरि कहर्ा िा कक अर्र र्ू
मेरे यहााँ पर आयेर्ी र्ो हम र्ुझे िान से
मार डालूिंर्ा। स्िसके सम्बन्द्ि में कमरिहााँ
ने मुकदमा सलखाया र्या िा यही मेरा
बयान है।"

5. After investigation, charge sheet
was
filed
wherein
trial
Court
took
cognizance and summoned the applicants
vide order dated 28.08.2023 under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4
of D.P. Act.

6. Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned
counsel for applicants has submitted that it
is a counterblast criminal case. Behaviour
of opposite party no.2/complainant was not
good and she was not ready to live along
with
applicant
no.1
and
ultimately,
applicant no.1 has filed a divorce petition
bearing Suit No. 2729 of 2022 on
19.10.2022 and when notice was issued on
it, as a counterblast, subsequently, FIR was
lodged
by
opposite
party
no.2
on
25.02.2023
a
creature
of
wrecking
vengeance.

7. Learned counsel has further
submitted that on basis of contents of
statement recorded during investigation,
there are omnibus allegations against
7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
applicant no.1 and his family members i.e.
other applicants. There is no specific
averment of commission of offences
referred above and it was filed only to
harass applicant no.1 and his family
members including women members.

8. Aforesaid submissions are opposed
by Sri Shubham Prakash Gupta, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 that
complainant and other witnesses have
specifically stated about occurrence and on
basis of their statements, all ingredients of
above referred offences are made out.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.

10.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions it would be relevant to refer
few paragraph of a recent judgement
passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as
under :-

"9. The law with regard to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Limited1 after considering the earlier
precedents. It will be apposite to refer to
the following observations of this Court in
the said case, which read thus:

"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 Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
[(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC
259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. 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 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.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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."

11. Crux of argument of learned
counsel for applicants is that since
applicant no.1 has filed a divorce petition
against her wife i.e. complainant, therefore,
she has made a counterblast case in order to
pressurize the applicants and lodged an FIR
not only against applicant no.1 but his
family members including women on basis
of omnibus false allegations, whereas
learned counsel for opposite parties have
supported the investigation, charge sheet
and summoning order.

12. At this stage, it would be apt to
refer few paragraphs of a judgment of
Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein after
considering various judgments of Supreme
Court viz., Rajesh Sharma and others vs.
State of UP 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 and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC
741 it was observed as follows:-

"18.
The
above-mentioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this
court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments
that 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. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them."

[emphasis supplied]

13. In a recent judgment of Supreme
Court in Priyanak Jaiswal vs. The State
of Jharkhand and others, 2024 INSC 357
it has been held as follows :-
7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589

"13. We say so for reasons more
than one. This Court in catena of
Judgments has consistently held that at the
time of examining the prayer for quashing
of the criminal proceedings, the court
exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can
neither undertake to conduct a mini trial
nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a
particular
case.
The
correctness
or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint cannot be examined on the
touchstone of the probable defence that the
accused may raise to stave off the
prosecution and any such misadventure by
the Courts resulting in proceedings being
quashed would be set aside. This Court in
the case of Akhil Sharda1 held to the
following effect:

"28. Having gone through the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court by which the High Court
has set aside the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has
virtually conducted a mini trial, which as
such is not permissible at this stage and
while deciding the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held
by this Court in a catena of decisions no
mini trial can be conducted by the High
Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of
deciding the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considered."

14. In above background, I have
carefully perused the contents of FIR and
statement of complainant and witnesses
recorded during investigation. Marriage of
applicant
no.1
and
complainant
was
solemnized about 5 years ago and despite
making an averment that she has suffered
repeated cruelty and there were repeated
demand of dowry, detail of not a day,
month or year has been mentioned.
Statement of complainant and witnesses
appear to be similar without any specific
allegation
against
any
of
applicants
specifically in regard to relatives of
applicant no.1 i.e. applicants no. 2 to 8.

15. Even nature of demand of dowry
was not specified by the complainant in her
statement and lacunae was filled by
statements of other witnesses recorded at
belated stage that there was a demand of
Rs. 5,00,000/- and a Bolero Car, though
there was a reference in the FIR.

16. As referred above, this Court has
to scrutinize whether on basis of above
referred
submissions,
allegations
of
demand of dowry, cruelty, intimidation and
intentional insult are made out or not and
for that this Court takes note of above
referred observations made in Kahkashan
Kausar (supra) that there is an increase
tendency
of
implicating
relatives
of
husband in matrimonial disputes and as
referred
above,
allegations
against
applicants no. 2 to 8 (i.e. father, mother,
unmarried sisters, brothers and their wives)
of applicant no.1 are general and omnibus
without any specific allegation, as such,
ingredients of offences are absolutely not
made out against applicant no.2 to 8. A
reference is made to statement recorded
during investigation that all applicants were
not happy with dowry given at the time of
marriage and soon after marriage, they
repeatedly demanded dowry of Rs.5 lakh
and Bolero and used to assault her also,
however, no reference is given about any
day, month or year of such act as marriage
period was of 5 years, therefore, it could be
considered to be a "general and omnibus
allegations" as well as the allegations of
assault are not supported by any medical
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence, though allegations are of also
repeated
assault.
General
statement,
without any reference to nature of cruelty
would not cover offence under Section
498A I.P.C. mechanically.

17. So far as applicant no.1 is
concerned, since allegations made by
complainant/opposite party no.2 and other
witnesses have some substance as they are
specific on issue that he forcibly left
complainant at her parental home and
extended threat and at this stage, it could be
said that they are general and omnibus
against him, therefore, no case is made out
for quashing charge sheet and summoning
order against applicant no.1.

18. Court also takes note that FIR was
lodged only after a divorce petition was
filed by applicant no.1, still considering
above referred statements recorded during
investigation, Court is of the opinion that it
is not a fit case to quash proceedings or
charge sheet against applicant no.1.

19. It would be apposite to refer few
paragraphs of Achin Gupta vs. State of
Haryana, 2024 0 INSC 369 wherein
Supreme Court has referred that in
matrimonial dispute, complaints are made
mechanically :-

"32. Many times, the parents
including the close relatives of the wife
make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of
salvaging the situation and making all
possible endeavours to save the marriage,
their action either due to ignorance or on
account of sheer hatred towards the
husband and his family members, brings
about complete destruction of marriage on
trivial issues. The fi rst thing that comes in
the mind of the wife, her parents and her
relatives is thePolice, as if the Police is the
panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter
reaches up to the Police,then even if there
are fair chances of reconciliation between
the spouses, they would get destroyed. The
foundation of a
sound
marriage
is
tolerance, adjustment and respecting one
another. Tolerance to each other's fault to
a certain bearable extent has to be inherent
in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling
differences are mundane matters and
should not be exaggerated and blown out of
proportion to destroy what is said to have
been made in the heaven. The Court must
appreciate that all quarrels must be
weighed from that point of view in
determining what constitutes cruelty in
each particular case, always keeping in
view the physical and mental conditions of
the parties, their character and social
status. A very technical and hyper sensitive
approach would prove to be disastrous for
the very institution of the marriage. In
matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are
the children. The spouses fight with such
venom in their heart that they do not think
even for a second that if the marriage
would come to an end, then what will be
the effect on their children. Divorce plays a
very dubious role so far as the upbringing
of the children is concerned. The only
reason why we are saying so is that instead
of handling the whole issue delicately, the
initiation of criminal proceedings would
bring about nothing but hatred for each
other. There may be cases of genuine illtreatment and harassment by the husband
and his family members towards the wife.
The degree of such ill-treatment or
harassment may vary. However, the Police
machinery should be resorted to as a
measure of last resort and that too in a very
genuine case of cruelty and harassment.
The Police machinery cannot be utilised for
the purpose of holding the husband at
ransom so that he could be squeezed by the
7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
wife at the instigation of her parents or
relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife
complains of harassment or ill-treatment,
Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied
mechanically. No FIR is complete without
Sections 506(2)and 323 of the IPC. Every
matrimonial conduct, which may cause
annoyance to the other, may not amount to
cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels
between spouses, which happen in day-today married life, may also not amount to
cruelty."

20. The Court also takes note of few
paragraphs of Mohammad Wajid and
another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023
INSC 683 in regard to offences under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC which are as
follows :-

"23. Chapter XXII of the IPC
relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and
Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:-

"Section
503.
Criminal
intimidation. -Whoever threatens another
with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested,
with intent to cause alarm to that person,
or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to
do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.

Explanation.-A threat to injure
the reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is interested,
is within this section.
Illustration

A, for the purpose of inducing B
to resist from prosecuting a civil suit,
threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of
criminal intimidation."

Section 504 reads thus:-

"Section 504. Intentional insult
with intent to provoke breach of the
peace.-Whoever intentionally insults, and
thereby gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause him to break
the public peace, or to commit any other
offence,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both."

Section 506 reads thus: -

"Section 506. Punishment for
criminal intimidation. -Whoever commits,
the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, etc.-And if the threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or
to cause an offence punishable with death
or
imprisonment
for
life,
or
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a
woman,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both."

24. An offence under Section
503 has following essentials:-

1) Threatening a person with
any injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or
property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation
of any one in whom that person is
interested.

2) The threat must be with
intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person;
or

(ii) to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit
to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.

25. Section 504 of the IPC
contemplates
intentionally
insulting
a
person and thereby provoking such person
insulted
to
breach
the
peace
or
intentionally insulting a person knowing it
to be likely that the person insulted may be
provoked so as to cause a breach of the
public peace or to commit any other
offence. Mere abuse may not come within
the purview of the section. But, the words
of abuse in a particular case might amount
to an intentional insult provoking the
person insulted to commit a breach of the
public peace or to commit any other
offence. If abusive language is used
intentionally and is of such a nature as
would in the ordinary course of events lead
the person insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law, the case
is not taken away from the purview of the
Section merely because the insulted person
did not actually break the peace or commit
any offence having exercised self control or
having been subjected to abject terror by
the offender. In judging whether particular
abusive language is attracted by Section
504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in
the ordinary circumstances, would be the
effect of the abusive language used and not
what the complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool
temperament or sense of discipline. It is the
ordinary general nature of the abusive
language that is the test for considering
whether the abusive language is an
intentional insult likely to provoke the
person insulted to commit a breach of the
peace and not the particular conduct or
temperament of the complainant.

26. Mere abuse, discourtesy,
rudeness or insolence, may not amount to
an intentional insult within the meaning
of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite
the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace of an offence and the other
element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a
breach of the peace or knowing that the
person insulted is likely to commit a
breach of the peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the
light of the facts and circumstances of that
case and there cannot be a general
proposition that no one commits an
offence under Section 504, IPC if he
merely uses abusive language against the
complainant.
In
King
Emperor
v.
Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR
78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court pointed out that:-

"To constitute an offence under
Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the
insult is of a kind calculated to cause the
other party to lose his temper and say or do
something violent. Public peace can be
broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)

27. A bare perusal of Section
506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part
of it relates to criminal intimidation.
Before an offence of criminal intimidation
is made out, it must be established that the
accused had an intention to cause alarm
to the complainant."

21. As referred above, statements
recorded during investigation are short of
above referred requirements for Sections
504 and 506 IPC at least against applicant
Nos.2 to 8, though it may have substance
against applicant No.1 as there is a specific
narration qua to him in regard to offence of
intimidation. There is nothing about nature
7 All. Mohd. Mohsin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593
of abusive language or there was any
element of being likely to incite the person
insulted to commit breach of peace at least
qua to applicants no. 2 to 8. Accordingly, in
view of A.M. Mohan (supra), it is a fit case
to exercise inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. as ingredients of referred
offences
are
not
made
out
against
applicants no. 2 to 8.

22. Accordingly, charge sheet dated
23.03.2023 and entire proceedings in
Criminal
Case
No.
130/2023
under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, arising out of Case
Crime
No.
45/2023,
Police
Station-
Mundali, District- Meerut, pending before
Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut are hereby
quashed qua to applicants nos. 2 to 8( Smt.
Rasheeda, Rashid, Kari Sajid, Khadija,
Maulana,
Muhammadi,
Ummehani).
However, trial will proceed further against
applicant no.1 only for above referred
offences and till date if he has not
surrendered, it is directed that he will
surrender before trial Court within 4 weeks
from today and in case any application for
bail is filed, the same shall be considered
expeditiously in accordance with law and
taking note of judgment passed by Supreme
Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI,
(2021) 10 SCC 773.

23. Application is partly allowed.

24. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Application U/S 482. No. 29862 of 2019

Mohd. Mohsin ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amit Daga, Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Surya Pratap Singh Parmar

Criminal Law - Application under Section
482 CrPC- Proceedings under Section 138 NI
Act- under challenge- cheque issued by the
applicant dishonoured
due to "insufficient
funds"- cheque dishonoured for the reason
being referred to the drawer- covered under
Section 138 NI Act- documents sent through
registered post- presumed to have been served
after the expiry of 30 days- Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act- Complaint has to be filed
in the name of the payee of the cheque-not his
power of attorney holder- no cause of action
arose in favour of opposite party on the basis of
presumption of notice- proceedings of criminal
complaint quashed- application allowed. (Paras
16, 17, 19, 20 and 21)

HELD:
Thus, from the specific judgments in the cases
of Electronics Trade &Technology Development
Corpn.
Ltd.,
Secunderabad
(supra),
K.K.
Sidharthan(supra) and Modi Cements Ltd.
(supra), the dishonour of cheque for the
reasons 'referred to the drawer' is fully covered
under the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act,
1881. Therefore, the submission in this regard
made by learned counsel for the applicant is not
sustainable. (Para16)

So far as the other issue with regard to service
of notice is concerned, theoffence under Section
138 of N.I. Act, 1881, shall be constituted only
upon the service of legal notice on the drawer of
the cheque and after expiry of 15 days from
such service of notice. In the complaint, there is
no averment with regard to the fact that when
the notice has actually been served on the
application. Therefore, in view of provisions of
Section 27 of General Clauses Act, adocuments
sent through the registered post shall be