# Pranjal Shukla & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. 426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 425
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 27067 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pranjal-shukla-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-426-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-51185
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sri Bharat Singh Pal, G.A., Sri Prabhat Tripathi

Matrimonial
dispute-general
and
vague
allegations with regard to the demand of dowry
etc.,- no specific incident as to who actually and
when
demanded
such
dowry
-from
the
allegations as made in the instant F.I.R. as well
as the St.ments of the opposite party no. 3, the
allegations are with regard to their matrimonial
obligations and physical relationship and a
concocted story of demand of dowry-entire
proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Pranjal Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
undue
influence
over
the
applicant,
whereby she had forced the applicant into
physical relations with her. From the facts
of the case it is apparent that the
prosecutrix had allured the applicant herein
due to subordination of the applicant, as he
was dependent financially on the family of
the prosecutrix and due to the aforesaid
dependency the prosecutrix had allured and
forced the applicant to entered into such a
relationship, which was with the clear and
categorical consent and will of the
prosecutrix, therefore, by no stretch of
imagination
such
relationship
would
amount to rape within the meaning of
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. As
per her own statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix herself
has helped the applicant to establish his
own business so that she can stay with the
applicant
in
future.
Admittedly,
the
prosecutrix was in a dominant position over
the applicant herein and there is no
allegation of any use of force or cheating
by the applicant to allure the prosecutrix at
the time of inception of the relationship
between them. The further story is that on
17.01.2018 the applicant had put a countrymade pistol on her head and had forcibly
raped her and prepared the video clip. From
the record neither the video clip is
recovered nor the said country-made pistol
has been recovered from possession of the
applicant or on the indication of the
applicant herein.

44. From the record, it is apparent
that initially the Final Report was prepared
having categorically found that the call
details of both the person did not match on
the place of occurrence as alleged in the
F.I.R. and the subsequently the chargesheet has been filed without establishing
the fact that the parties were present at the
place of occurrence and no material has
been concluded with regard to nonexistence of the financial dispute between
the parties, which was categorically alleged
by the witnesses in the first round of
investigation, as was directed by the
Superintendent of Police.

45. Therefore, this Court is of
the considered opinion that in the instant
case no offence of rape is made out
against the applicant herein and the
instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the
prosecutrix being annoyed with regard to
the engagement of the applicant with
some other lady and she was not willing
to leave the applicant, therefore, the
subsequent incident of forcible rape has
been concocted by the prosecutrix only
for the purpose of lodging the F.I.R.,
which is not substantiated during the
investigation.

46.

Therefore,
the
instant
application is allowed and the entire
proceedings of the Charge-sheet dated
09.08.2018 in S.T. No. 826 of 2018 as well
as the entire criminal proceedings in Case
Crime No. 59 of 2018 under Sections 376
an 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila
Thana, District- Moradabad, pending in the
court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad, are
hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 425
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 27067 of 2019

Pranjal Shukla & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sri Vinay Saran (Sr.
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bharat Singh Pal, G.A., Sri Prabhat Tripathi

Matrimonial
dispute-general
and
vague
allegations with regard to the demand of dowry
etc.,- no specific incident as to who actually and
when
demanded
such
dowry
-from
the
allegations as made in the instant F.I.R. as well
as the St.ments of the opposite party no. 3, the
allegations are with regard to their matrimonial
obligations and physical relationship and a
concocted story of demand of dowry-entire
proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Geeta Mehrotra v. St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741

2. Achin Gupta Vs St. of Har. & anr.: 2024 SCC
Online SC 759

3. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bihar, (2022) 6
SCC 599

4. Mohammad Wajid Vs St. of U.P., 2023 AIR
Supreme Court 3784

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

1. Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicants, Shri Bharat Singh Pal, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for
the State respondents.

2. The instant application has been
filed
seeking
quashing
of
the
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
30.05.2019 as well as the charge-sheet
dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of
Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the
Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections
498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.
Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-
Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the
court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast
Track Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the opposite party no. 2 is the father-inlaw of the applicant no. 1 herein. The
daughter of the opposite party No. 2,
namely Meesha Shukla/opposite party no.3,
was married with the applicant no.
1/Pranjal Shukla, on 07.12.2015, as per
Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged in the
F.I.R. that in the said marriage the opposite
party no. 2 has spent a huge amount of
money. After the marriage the in-laws of
the daughter of the opposite party no 2,
namely Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel
Sharma, were not satisfied with the dowry
and gifts given during the marriage.
However, it has been categorically stated in
the F.I.R. that prior to marriage there was
no demand of money. However, when the
marriage was settled, in the name of
various customs, they demanded money. It
is further stated in the F.I.R. that after the
marriage the husband and the in-laws i.e.,
the applicants herein started making
comments against her and said that her
father has selected an IIT qualified groom,
then, dowry ought to have been given.
When the opposite party no. 3 told that her
father is not having the capacity to meet all
the demands, then, they started abusing and
assaulting the daughter of the opposite
party no. 2. His daughter was compelled
too much that he had to give the articles
worth Rs. 15 to 20 lakh and cash as well.
Even after such payments and giving of the
articles the applicant no. 1 was not satisfied
and he used to misbehave and assault his
daughter. When it was informed by the
opposite party no.3 to her in-laws they also
10 All. Pranjal Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
did not pay any attention to the same and
told that money has to be brought in. It is
also stated that the applicant no.1 used to
drink and also used to watch porn films and
used to insist for unnatural sex with the
opposite party no.3 and used to be nude
before her and also used to masturbate.
When the daughter of the opposite party
no. 2 used to object to the same, he did not
pay any heed to her objections. The
applicant no.1, under the influence of
alcohol and drugs, tried to kill his daughter
and strangled her, when it was objected by
the daughter of the opposite party no. 2,
then, the applicant no.1 left the daughter of
the opposite party no. 2 with her in-laws
and went alone Singapore. When the
opposite party no. 3 insisted to go to
Singapore, then, the in-laws told her that
unless all their demands are fulfilled, she
will stay there at Mumbai only. When the
opposite party no.2, did not fulfil their
demands they have sent his daughter at
Noida with the opposite party no. 2 and her
husband started living at Singapore. When
the daughter of the opposite party no.2
insisted to her husband to go to Singapore,
he told her to bring money from her
parents.

4. After staying for about eight to
nine months at Noida the daughter of the
opposite party no. 2 went to Singapore on
27.07.2017, where she found the applicant
no. 1 consuming the drugs and the alcohol.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that for
about a year the applicant no. 1 was
torturing his daughter at Singapore and due
to his activities his daughter had to seek
employment and entire salary was spent by
her to fulfil the demands of the applicant
no. 1. When the opposite party no. 3 told all
those incidents to the opposite party no. 2,
then, again for the second time the opposite
party no.2 went to Singapore to convince
the applicant no. 1 but both times he
behaved inhumanly with them and abused
and threatened to kill his daughter. On the
basis of such written report, an F.I.R. being
Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 was registered
on 23.7.2018. The matter was investigated
by the police and after registration of the
F.I.R. the intimation was also given to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs with regard to
the criminal case pending against the
applicant no. 1.

5. After registration of the F.I.R.
the applicants have filed a Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 23151 of 2018 (Pranjal
Shukla and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others) before this Court and matter was
referred to the Mediation Centre Vide order
dated 24.08.2018 and interim protection
was granted to the applicants. Subsequent
thereto, the applicants have cooperated
with investigation and ultimately after
conclusion of the investigation the chargesheet was filed against the applicants
herein. The mediation between the parties
failed
on
26.10.2018,
due
to
noncooperation of the opposite parties no. 2
and 3. However, after failure of the
mediation the opposite party no. 2 through
his counsel sent a notice to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Singapore requesting for
freezing/hold of the passport of the
applicant no. 1. Similarly, the opposite
party no. 2 also sent the letters to the CEO
of the company where the applicant no. 1
was employed, requesting for his return to
India. In the meantime, the aforesaid Writ
Petition No. 23151 of 2018 was disposed of
vide
order
dated
30.01.2019
and
investigation was directed to continue.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid
ordered, the charge-sheet was filed on
20.04.2019. The learned Magistrate, has
taken cognizance of the charge-sheet filed
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the applicants herein. Vide order
dated 30.05.2019, without any application
of mind in a mechanical manner, by a
cryptic order against which the instant
application has been filed by the applicants.
While entertaining the instant application,
the matter was again referred to the
Mediation
Centre
vide
order
dated
15.07.2019 and as per the report of the
Mediation Centre dated 18.03.2021, the
mediation between the parties could not
succeed. Thereupon, the pleadings were
exchanged and the matter is finally heard.

7. Learned counsel for the
applicants submits that in the entire F.I.R.
as well as in the statements of the opposite
party no. 2, there are only general and
vague allegations with regard to the
demand of dowry etc., no specific incident
as to who actually and when demanded
such dowry has been made out either in the
F.I.R. or in the statement of witnesses.
Admittedly, the applicant no. 1 went to
Singapore in connection of his employment
and after the applicant no.1 has gone to
Singapore, the opposite party no. 3 came
back to her parents' home and stayed there
for about eight-nine months and ultimately
on 27.07.2017, the opposite party no. 3 was
also taken to Singapore by the applicant no.
1. From the allegations as made in the
instant F.I.R. as well as the statements of
the opposite party no. 3, the allegations are
with regard to their matrimonial obligations
and physical relationship and the unnatural
sexual activities by the applicant no. 1,
which was objected by the opposite party
no. 3. The assaults which are alleged in the
statement by the opposite party no.3, are
with regard to non-fulfilment of the sexual
urges of the applicant no.1 by the opposite
party no.3 and not for any cruelty meted
out for demand of dowry. However, not a
single date of any actual incident has been
made out in the F.I.R. as well as in the
statement of witnesses and only general
and vague allegations have been made.
Despite the specific query made by the
Investigation Officer, she has not been able
to point out any specific place of incident,
which
could
be
verified
by
the
Investigation Agency. Therefore, learned
Senior
Counsel
relying
upon
the
judgements of the Apex Court in Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana
and Another : 2024 SCC Online SC 759
and Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599, submits that for want of
any specific allegation, merely on general
and vague allegations, the prosecution of
the applicants herein is unwanted and is
just a malicious prosecution. Further,
learned Senior Counsel relying upon the
judgement
of
the
Apex
Court
in
Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023
AIR Supreme Court 3784 submits that no
offence under Sections 504, 506, 509 I.P.C.,
are made out against the applicants,
therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits
that none of the offences as alleged are
made out from the entire material available
on record. Thus, the instant proceeding is
nothing but a malicious prosecution on the
part of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3
against the applicants herein with ulterior
motive. Therefore, learned counsel for the
applicants seeks quashing of the entire
proceedings of the instant case.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for
the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 submits that
from the allegations as made, there are
clear and categorical allegations with
regard to the demand of dowry and torture
for demand of dowry. Therefore, a prima
facie case is made out against the
applicants herein and the allegations have
been
found
established
during
the
10 All. Pranjal Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
investigation, on the basis of which the
charge-sheet
has
been
filed
by
the
applicants herein. Further, the trial court
having found a prima facie case gainst the
applicants herein has taken cognizance in
the
matter
and
has
summoned
the
applicants herein, therefore, there is no
illegality the instant proceedings initiated
against the applicant and also in the chargesheet as well as in the summoning order
passed by the learned trial court.

9. Learned A.G.A. supports the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the opposite party nos. 2 & 3.

10. Having heard the submissions
made by learned counsels for the parties,
this Court has carefully gone through the
record of the case. From the record of the
case, it is apparent that in the entire F.I.R.
as well as in the statements of witnesses
recorded during the investigation no
specific allegation has been made out
against the applicants herein. Only general
and vague allegations have been made out
with regard to the demand and torture for
demand of dowry. However, from the close
scrutiny of the F.I.R. as well as the
statement of the victim, the torture or any
assault, if any, is meted out not for any
demand of dowry but on refusal of the
opposite party no. 3 to fulfil the sexual
urges of the applicant no. 1. So far as the
applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, there
is not a single allegation against them.
Even in the F.I.R., it has been categorically
stated that prior to marriage there was no
demand of dowry by the applicants, at any
stage. From the close scrutiny of the F.I.R.
as well as statement of the witnesses it is
apparent that the dispute is with regard to
the sexual incompatibility of the parties for
which the dispute was there between the
parties and due to the said dispute the
instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the
opposite party no.2, making out the false
and concocted allegations with regard to
the
demand
of
dowry,
torture
and
harassment. If man would not demand
sexual favour from his own wife and viceversa, where they will go to satisfy their
physical sexual urges in a morally civilized
society. In any of the event, no injury has
ever been sustained by the opposite party
no.3. Thus, from the facts of the case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, by no
stretch of imagination it can be said to be
an offence of cruelty in terms of section
498-A I.P.C. There is no avernment with
regard to any specific demand of dowry
made by any specific person except the
general and vague allegations.

11. Before proceeding further it
would be relevant to take note of the
provisions of Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. as
well as 3/4 of the D.P. Act, for which the
applicants have been charged.

 Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C.

Section 498-A. Husband
or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever,
being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For
the
purposes of this section, "cruelty
means"-
(a)
any
wilful
conduct
which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b)
harassment
of
the
woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such
demand.]
"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,
of 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."
Sections 3 and 4 of the
D.P. Act.
"3. Penalty for giving or
taking dowry.-
(1) If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, gives or
takes or abets the giving or taking
of dowry, he shall be punishable
[with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five
years, and with fine which shall not
be less than fifteen thousand rupees
or the amount of the value of such
dowry, whichever is more]:
Provided that the Court
may, for adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less
than [five years].
[(2)Nothing in sub-section
(1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,-
(a) presents which are
given at the time of a marriage to
the bride (without any demand
having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents
are entered in a list maintained in
accordance with the rules made
under this Act;
(b)presents which are given
at the time of a marriage to the
bridegroom (without any demand
having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents
are entered in a list maintained in
accordance with the rules made
under this Act:
Provided further that where
such presents are made by or on
behalf of the bride or any person
related to the bride, such presents
are of a customary nature and the
value thereof is not excessive
having regard to the financial
status of the person by whom, or on
whose behalf, such presents are
given].
4. Penalty for demanding
dowry.--If any person demands,
directly or indirectly, from the
parents or other relatives or
guardian of a bride or bridegroom,
as the case may be, any dowry, he
shall
be
punishable
with
10 All. Pranjal Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months,
but which may extend to two years
and with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court
may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less
than six months."

12. In case of Geeta Mehrotra
(supra), the Apex Court has observed as
under:-

"19. Coming to the facts of
this case, when the contents of the
FIR is perused, it is apparent that
there are no allegations against
Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference
of their names who have been
included in the FIR but mere
casual reference of the names of
the
family
members
in
a
matrimonial
dispute
without
allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking
cognizance
against
them
overlooking the fact borne out of
experience that there is a tendency
to
involve
the
entire
family
members of the household in the
domestic quarrel taking place in a
matrimonial dispute specially if it
happens soon after the wedding.
20. It would be relevant at
this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded
in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High
Court should have quashed the
complaint
arising
out
of
a
matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members had been roped
into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside.
Their Lordships observed therein
with which we entirely agree that:
"there has been an outburst
of matrimonial dispute in recent
times.
Marriage
is
a
sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is
to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in
heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with
the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about
rapprochement
are
rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There
are many reasons which need not
be
mentioned
here
for
not
encouraging
matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and
terminate the disputes amicably by
mutual
agreement
instead
of
fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the
parties lose their young days in
chasing their cases in different
courts."
The view taken by the
judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such
disputes.
21. In yet another case
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR
2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana it was
observed that there is no doubt that
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the object of introducing Chapter
XXA containing Section 498A in the
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent
the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added
with a view to punish the husband
and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her
relatives
to
satisfy
unlawful
demands of dowry. But if the
proceedings are initiated by the
wife under Section 498A against
the husband and his relatives and
subsequently she has settled her
disputes with her husband and his
relatives and the wife and husband
agreed for mutual divorce, refusal
to exercise inherent powers by the
High Court would not be proper as
it would prevent woman from
settling
earlier.
Thus
for
the
purpose of securing the ends of
justice quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 Cr. P.C.
would not be a bar to the exercise
of power of quashing. It would
however be a different matter
depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether
to exercise or not to exercise such a
power."
(Emphasis supplied)

13. In Kahkashan Kausar (supra),
the Apex Court has observed as under:

"10. Having perused the
relevant
facts
and
contentions
made
by
the
appellants
and
respondents, in our considered
opinion, the foremost issue which
requires
determination
in
the
instant case is whether allegations
made against the appellant in-laws
are in the nature of general
omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v.
State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v.
State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed :
(SCC p. 749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at
this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded
in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC
693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members
had
been
roped
into
the
matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with
which we entirely agree that : (SCC
p. 698, para 12)
'12. ... There has been an
outburst of matrimonial dispute in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result
that
those
who
could
have
counselled
and
brought
about
rapprochement
are
rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There
are many other reasons which need
not be mentioned here for not
10 All. Pranjal Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their
disputes
amicably
by
mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their
"young" days in chasing their cases
in different courts.
16. Recently, in K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana,
(2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC
(Cri) 605] , it was also observed
that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
"6. ... The courts should
be careful in proceeding against
the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes
and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped
in on the basis of omnibus
allegations
unless
specific
instances of their involvement in
the crime are made out."
17. The abovementioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that
this
Court
has
at
numerous
instances expressed concern over
the misuse of Section 498-AIPC
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
in-laws
of
the
husband when no prima facie case
is made out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of
this case, upon a perusal of the
contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019,
it
is
revealed
that
general
allegations are levelled against the
appellants.
The
complainant
alleged that "all accused harassed
her mentally and threatened her of
terminating
her
pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been
made
against
either
of
the
appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed
any specific role in furtherance of
the
general
allegations
made
against them. This simply leads to
a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each
accused in furtherance of the
offence.
The
allegations
are,
therefore, general and omnibus
and can at best be said to have
been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned,
since
he
has
not
appealed against the order of the
High Court, we have not examined
the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the
appellants
are
concerned,
the
allegations made against them
being general and omnibus, do not
warrant
prosecution.
21. Therefore, upon consideration
of the relevant circumstances and
in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant-accused,
it would be unjust if the appellants
are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the
relatives
of
the
complainant's
husband are forced to undergo
trial. It has been highlighted by this
Court in varied instances, that a
criminal
trial
leading
to
an
eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and
such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged."
(Emphasis supplied)

14. In Achin Gupta (supra), the
Apex Court has observed as under:

"25. If a person is made to
face a criminal trial on some
general and sweeping allegations
without bringing on record any
specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of
the process of the court. The court
owes
a
duty
to
subject
the
allegations
levelled
in
the
complaint to a thorough scrutiny to
find out, prima facie, whether there
is any grain of truth in the
allegations or whether they are
made only with the sole object of
involving certain individuals in a
criminal charge, more particularly
when a prosecution arises from a
matrimonial dispute."
(Emphasis supplied)

15. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court the instant F.I.R. is
nothing but a concocted story of demand of
dowry by making general and vague
allegations against the applicants herein.
Therefore, in view of the judgement of
Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra),
Achin
Gupta
(supra),
as
well
as
Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the instant
application
is
allowed
and
the
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
30.05.2019 as well as the charge-sheet
dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of
Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the
Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections
498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.
Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-
Gautam
Buddha
Nagar,
are
hereby
quashed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 434
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Appeal u/s 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No. 305 of 2024
alongwith
Appeal u/s 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 Nos. 306 of 2024, 307 of 2024, 308 of
2024 & 310 of 2024

B.S.N.L. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Chaurasiya Entp. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Daya Shankar, Mahendra Kumar Mishra

A. Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996-Section 37-BSNL floated tenders
in 2015 for laying Optical Fibre Cable in
District
Bhadoi-dispute
arose
due
to
pending
payments,
and
Chaurasiya
Enterprises
sought
arbitration-Sole
Arbitrator passed awards in favor of
Chaurasiya
Enterprises-BSNL
filed
objections u/s 34 which were rejected by
the
Commercial
court
Varanasi-BSNL
appealed under section 37-The court held
that
BSNL's
casual
approach,
non-