# Rohit Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 16977 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53931
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Legality of summoning order

Headnotes
Matrimonial dispute-Indian Penal Code-
Section 498A-Applicant is brother-in-law of
informant- general and omnibus allegations-
date of demand of dowry and the manner in
which demand for dowry was made is not
stated- aforesaid allegations cannot be a ground
for summoning the applicant-accused - criminal
proceedings quashed. Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

9 All. Rohit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
565
constitute an offence under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code. The transaction
alleged or omission on part of Applicant in
the present case is founded on the violation
of the terms of contract which is civil
wrong.

22. In view of the facts and
circumstances
and
reasons
stated
hereinabove, the present 482 Cr.P.C
application is allowed and the criminal
proceedings including chargesheet dated
3.6.2017 in Criminal Case No. 1702 of
2017 (State Vs Shivam and others) arising
out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2017, under
Sections 406 and 120B I.P.C, Police
Station-Badhapur,
District-Bijnor
are
hereby quashed.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 16977 of 2023

Rohit Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ahmad Saquib Mansoor, Randhir Jain,
Sandeep Kumar Keshari

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

Issue for consideration
Legality of summoning order

Headnotes
Matrimonial dispute-Indian Penal Code-
Section 498A-Applicant is brother-in-law of
informant- general and omnibus allegations-
date of demand of dowry and the manner in
which demand for dowry was made is not
stated- aforesaid allegations cannot be a ground
for summoning the applicant-accused - criminal
proceedings quashed. Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Viri Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and
another - 2025:AHC:147074
2. Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana, 2024 INSC
369
3. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others Vs State of
Telangana & Another, 2024 INSC 953
4. Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and another - 2012 (10) SCC 741

List of Acts
1. India Penal Code

List of Keywords
Vague and general allegations; dowry; Section
498A; relative of the husband

Appearances of parties
Counsel for applicant(s) : Ahmad Saquib
Mansoor, Randhir Jain, Sandeep Kumar Keshari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arunesh Kumar
Singh, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Randhir Jain and Sri
Sandeep Kumar Kesari, learned counsels
for the Applicant, Sri Arunesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application is preferred
by Applicant for quashing the chargesheet
dated 12/5/2019 under sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 of I.P.C. and under sections 3/4 of
Dowary Prohibition Act, 1961, police
Station - Chaubeypur, District - Varanasi,
as well as, cognizance order dated
25/7/2019 in criminal case no. 999 of 2019
(State Vs Anil Sharma and others) arising
out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2019 under
sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 3/4 of Dowary Prohibition Act
pending in the Court of Judicial MagistrateIIIrd, District Magistrate, Varanasi.

3. The applicant is brother-in-law of
informant. Initially, the first information
report dated 03.01.2019 was lodged under
sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, against Applicant and five
other accused persons [(namely - Anil
Sharma
(Husband),
Virendra
Sharma
(Father in law), Malti Devi (Mother in
Law), Amit Sharma (Brother in law), Ishu
(Brother in law)], at police Station -
Chaubeypur,
Varanasi.
The
first
information report was lodged by opposite
party no. 2 - Geeta Sharma. The first
information report was lodged at Case
Crime No.02 of 2019.

4. The prosecution case as per the first
information report is to the effect that
opposite party no. 2-wife was married to
Anil Sharma on 24.04.2013. At the time of
marriage, at the tilak ceremony Rs.
50,000/- cash, gold ring, clothes and other
items were given and thereafter at the time
of marriage further gifts were given. After
marriage, informant went to matrimonial
home then after one and half months of
marriage, husband, father-in-law, motherin-law and brother-in-law (which included
the applicant), started harassing and beating
the informant for dowry and demanded Rs.
2 lakhs for establishment of business. The
opposite party no. 2 objected to aforesaid
demand and stated that the family members
of opposite party no. 2 are not in a position
to pay Rs. 2 Lacs as demanded by accused
persons, as a result of the same, accused
persons started beating and harassing
opposite party no 2. When the father of
informant came to take informant for some
days, accused persons have demanded
dowry and stated that informant may not be
sent back to matrimonial home if the
demand for dowry is not fulfilled. The
jewellery which was given by father of
informant was retained by accused persons
and informant was sent back. The father of
informant used to send back informant to
matrimonial home. Out of the marriage,
one son was born who is aged about three
years at the time of lodging of first
information
report,
however,
all
the
expenses of aforesaid son are being met out
by father of informant. On 05.06.2018,
when
informant
was
seven
months
pregnant,
the
husband,
father-in-law,
mother-in-law
and
brother-in-law
and
Kishori came and on the enticing of
Kishori, accused persons demanded rupees
two lakhs as dowry and thereafter have
assaulted informant and have thrown her
out of matrimonial home along with child
and the accused persons have stated that
informant may not come back till demand
of dowry is met. The accused person have
beaten informant and as a result of the
same she was admitted in hospital at
Varanasi and second child was born dead.
Informant is living with her father in her
parental home and accused persons had not
taken any pain to contact her.

5. The investigating officer thereafter
has recorded statement of the informant
under section 161 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, where informant has stated that
marriage of informant with co-accusedAnil Kumar was held on 22.04.2013 in
accordance with Hindu Rituals and Rites.
In the marriage, father of informant had
given 50,000 cash, jewellery and other
items. After one and half years of marriage
the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law
and three brother-in-law have beaten and
harassed the informant for demand of
dowry.
The
accused
person
were
9 All. Rohit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
567
demanding dowry to the tune of Rs. Two
Lacs for purpose of establishment of
business. When the parents of informant
went to meet the accused persons they have
demanded Rs Two Lacs and further stated
not to send informant if the demand is not
met. All the jewellery were kept by the
accused persons and the informant was sent
back to her parents home. The parents of
informant used to send the informant to the
matrimonial home. One son was born out
of marriage. In the intervening period when
informant was sent back to her matrimonial
home, the husband, mother-in-law, fatherin-law and brother-in-law used to assault
the informant and have thrown her out of
matrimonial home and stated to informant
not to come back without the amount
demanded.

6. Thereafter, statement of mother of
informant namely Shanti Sharma was
recorded by investigating officer, who has
stated that Geeta Sharma is my daughter
and she was married with great pomp and
show with Anil Sharma by giving 50,000
cash and jewellery. Initially, everything
was good but after few days my daughter's
husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and
brother-in-law started demanding Rs. Two
Lacs as dowry. When it was informed that
they do not have the money then the
accused persons have beaten my daughter
(informant) abused her and thrown her out
of matrimonial home and further stated that
if the amount of Rs. four lakh is not given
then they will kill her. The accused persons
have harassed the informant for dowry.

7. The investigating officer has further
recorded the statement of father of
informant namely-Chauthi Sharma who has
stated that marriage of his daughter was
held with great pomp and show by giving
50,000 cash as Tilak and some jewellery.
Things were fine for some time after
marriage but after few days, husband,
mother-in-law, father-in-law and three
brother-in-law started demanding rupees
Rs. two lacs as dowary and started
harassing informant. We tried to convince
accused persons and sent informant to
matrimonial
home,
however,
accused
persons used to pressurise informant to
bring Rs. two lacs as dowry, further
accused persons used to harass informant
and beat her, abuse her and threatened for
life.

8. The investigating officer thereafter
submitted charge-sheet dated 03.01.2019
against accused persons including the
applicant under section 498A, 323, 504 and
506 of Indian penal code and section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court
concerned thereafter has taken cognizance
on 25.07.2019.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel
for applicant that applicant is brother-inlaw and is residing in Prayagraj city for
preparation of competitive examination. It
is further submitted that allegations in first
information report and statement recorded
by investigating officer, in respect of
applicant, are wholly vague in nature and
lacks specification. It is further submitted
that applicant has never demanded any
dowry nor has harassed opposite party no.2
for non-fullfillment of dowry.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2- informant that the
informant lodged the first information
report
against
the
accused
persons
including
applicant
and
thereafter
investigating officer has investigated the
case and recorded the statement under
section 161 of Cr.P.C. and found accused
person to be offender. The accused persons
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
including applicant have committed assault
and have harassed informant and demanded
dowry as such investigating officer has
rightly submitted chargesheet and the court
concerned
has
taken
cognizance
in
accordance with law.

11. Learned AGA on behalf of
opposite
party
no.1
submitted
that
chargesheet has been submitted against
applicant in accordance with law and the
court concerned has taken cognizance of
offence. It is further submitted that
applicant was found to have demanded
dowry
and
subjected
informant
to
harassment
and
assault.
The
court
concerned has in accordance with law
taken cognizance of offence. The present
482 Cr.P.C application is liable to be
dismissed.

12. In the present case, applicant (who
is brother-in-law of informant), is also
prosecuted under Section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code provides penal consequences
where husband or relative of husband
subjects such woman to cruelty. The
cruelty has been defined in the explanation
appended to Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code. There are two explanations provided
under aforesaid provision for interpretation
of word "cruelty" provided under aforesaid
section. The explanation (a) provides that
"cruelty" would mean any willful 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 (whether mental or physical). The
explanation (b) provides cruelty would mean
harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coerce her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure of her or any person
related to her to meet such demand. The
provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code prescribes as under :

"498A. 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
(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."

13. In the present case, there is no
allegation that the applicant has offered any
willful 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 of woman. The counsel for opposite
parties has neither relied upon any grave injury
suffered by opposite party no. 2 nor has relied
upon any medical report in this respect. It is not
in dispute between the parties that no medical
practitioner was examined in support of FIR
before the court concerned. It is not alleged in
the FIR nor any material circumstances have
been shown on behalf of opposite parties that
the conduct of applicant was of such a nature as
is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.

14. As per prosecution case, it is
alleged that the wife was being subjected to
harassment
by
accused
person
and
9 All. Rohit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
569
demanding amount to meet unlawful
demand. For the purpose of prosecution
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,
it is imperative that the woman should be
subjected to cruelty by the husband or
relative of the husband of a woman. As per
explanation (b) of the aforesaid section, it
is imperative that the harassment of woman
should be with a view to coerce 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 the woman to meet
such demand.

15. A perusal of First Information
Report would go to show that general and
omnibus allegations are made against the
applicant with regard to demand of dowry.
Although in first information report, it has
been stated that accused persons were
demanding dowry of Rs. two lacs,
however, neither the date nor time of
alleged demand has been disclosed in the
FIR. The statement of informant also does
not disclose the details of harassment
which has been incurred by applicant to the
wife-informant in respect of demand for
dowry.

16. This Court in Viri Singh and
another Vs State of U.P. and another -
2025:AHC:147074 in the context of vague
and general allegations in a criminal case,
has observed as under :-

"24. Criminal law is set in
motion by lodging of First Information
Report
or
Complaint.
The
investigation/prosecution is carried upon to
find the truth in allegations. Setting in
motion criminal law entails consequences
including curtailing of liberty of individual.
The criminal law machinery is based on the
nature of allegations and the evidence
found during investigation/ prosecution/
enquiry. It is important for prosecution to
provide precise details of allegations and
evidence to support the prosecution case.

25.
Vague,
ambiguous
and
omnibus allegations can violate the right of
accused to process of law and fair trial. It
is fundamental principle of law that
accused be subjected to fair trial. Vague
allegation has significant effect on defence
by creating uncertainty. Without specific
details and evidence, the defence of
accused may be prejudiced or the accused
may not be able to effectively defend
himself.

26. Vague allegation can affect
the defence of accused by making it difficult
to formulate a targeted defence strategy.
Without clear specifics or evidence to
address, accused may struggle to refute the
allegations or present a compelling counter
argument. Lawyers/Advocates typically rely
on specific information to prepare their case,
such as dates, time, location, and witnesses.
Vague allegations lack these crucial details,
leaving the defence to speculate or generalize
their response, which can weaken their
defence in court. The mere suggestion of
wrong doing, without substantiation, can lead
to stigma and prejudice against the accused,
making it harder for them to receive a fair
trial. Moreover, vague allegations may
prolong legal proceedings as the defence
attempts to gather more information to
understand the accusations fully."

17. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 the
Supreme Court has laid emphasis that the
complaint must contain material to enable
the court to make up mind for issuing
process.

"5. Section 203 of the Code
empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint without even issuing a process. It
uses the words "after considering" and "the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding". These
words suggest that the Magistrate has to
apply his mind to a complaint at the initial
stage itself and see whether a case is made
out against the accused persons before
issuing process to them on the basis of the
complaint. For applying his mind and
forming an opinion as to whether there is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding,
a
complaint must make out a prima facie
case to proceed. This, in other words,
means that a complaint must contain
material to enable the Magistrate to make
up his mind for issuing process. If this were
not the requirement, consequences could be
far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue
process in every case, the burden of work
before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom
process
is
issued
would
be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words "if in the opinion of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding". The words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" again suggest that ground
should be made out in the complaint for
proceeding against the respondent. It is
settled law that at the time of issuing of the
process the Magistrate is required to see
only the allegations in the complaint and
where allegations in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute an offence
against a person, the complaint is liable to
be dismissed."

18. The question therefore arises what
is the material which is required to be
before the court to issue process under
criminal law. The material facts and
particulars to constitute an offence are
required to be shown by prosecution before
the court proceeds to issue the process. The
material facts and particulars are those facts
which essentially would be required to
constitute an offence. These facts would
also include such facts which the law
recognises
as
important
facts
for
proceeding with the trial of the case. These
facts are also necessary to bring fairness in
the process of trial. In this respect, Sections
212 and 213 of Cr.P.C. (Section 235 & 236
of BNSS) also recognises that the charge
shall contain particulars of time & place of
offence and the particulars or the manner in
which the alleged offence was committed.
The rule of law requires that accused is
visited with specific allegations in criminal
prosecution. Specific allegations under
criminal law would require that date, time
and place of alleged offence is specified
(more particularly when the complainant is
the victim having personal knowledge), the
details of person against whom the offence
is committed or the thing in respect of
which the offence was committed. The
allegations should also describe the manner
in which the offence is committed. In
Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC
184 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
emphasised the need for specific and
proper allegation in criminal law. In this
reference para-9 of the Neelu Chopra
Judgement (Supra) is quoted herein below :

"9. In order to lodge a proper
complaint, mere mention of the sections
and the language of those sections is not
the be all and end all of the matter. What is
required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and
the role played by each and every accused
in committing of that offence."

19. In Achin Gupta Vs State of
Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the Supreme
9 All. Rohit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
571
Court has laid emphasis that general and
sweeping
allegation
without
specific
instance is an abuse of process of Court. In
this reference para-25 of the Achin Gupta
(Supra) is quoted herebelow :

"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"

20. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana &
Others
Vs
State
of
Telangana
&
Another, 2024 INSC 953, the Supreme
Court has observed that vague allegation
may lead to misuse of legal process. In this
respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted herein
below:

"18. A bare perusal of the FIR
shows that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus.
Other than claiming that appellant No.1
harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6
instigated him to do so, respondent No.2
has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of
harassment. She has also not mentioned the
time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore,
the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A
of the IPC by way of an amendment was
intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across
the
country,
accompanied
by
growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there
has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as
a tool for unleashing personal vendetta
against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if
not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of
legal processes and an encouragement for
use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or
her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands
of a wife. Consequently, this Court, time
and again, cautioned against prosecuting
the husband and his family in the absence
of a clear prima facie case against them."

21. In Geeta Mehrotra and another
Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another -
2012 (10) SCC 741, the Supreme Court has
held that where the contents of the first
information report do not disclose specific
allegations against the brother and sister of
the complainant's husband except casual
reference of their names, it would not be
just to direct them to go through protracted
procedure and as a result of same criminal
proceedings against brother-in-law and
sister-in-law were quashed in the said case.

22. A bare perusal of First Information
Report and statement of opposite party no.
2 would go to show that general, vague and
omnibus allegations are made against
applicant. It has not been disclosed in first
information report or in statement of
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite party no.2 as to the role assigned
to applicant. Even the date of demand of
dowry and the manner in which demand for
dowry was made, is not stated. In the
statement of opposite party no.2, general
and vague allegations with regard to
demand of dowry are made against the
applicant, who is brother-in-law. In view of
aforesaid, general, vague and omnibus
allegations
have
been
made
against
applicants, (who is family members of
husband) as such, the aforesaid allegations
cannot be a ground for summoning the
applicant-accused under Sections 498A of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.

23. The Applicant is also summoned
under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code. The offence under Section 504 of
Indian Penal Code prescribes that 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. The offence under
Section 504 I.P.C. requires that there
should be intentional insult and thereby
giving provocation to any person intending
or knowing that such provocation will
cause him to break public peace or to
commit any offence. In the present case,
there are no material circumstances to show
that there was any intentional insult which
would give provocation to the wife to cause
any break of public peace or to commit any
offence as such the material ingredient of
offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is not
made out from the prosecution case.
Further, Section 506 provides punishment
for offence of criminal intimidation.

24.
The
offence
of
criminal
intimidation has been prescribed under
Section 503 of Indian Penal Code and the
same is quoted here in below :-

"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."

25. An act of criminal intimidation
would occur when a person 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.

26. A perusal of first information
report would go to show that there is no
allegation of any threatening against
applicant. The first information report does
not make any specific allegations against
applicant with regard to any threatening
and using of abusive language. The first
information report does not specify as to
what was the language used by applicant.
Further the date, time and place of
9 All. Braham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
threatening by applicant has also not been
disclosed in the complaint. Even otherwise,
allegations do not constitute an offence
under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code
against
applicant.
The
court
concerned erred in issuing summons
against applicant under Sections 504 and
506 of Indian Penal Code.

27. The applicant is also summoned
under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code.
Section 323 of Indian Penal Code provides
for offence of causing hurt. The 'Hurt' has
been defined under Section 319 of I.P.C. as
whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
The informant has specifically alleged that
the accused has assaulted the Informant and
have thrown her out of matrimonial home.
The statement of complainant before the
court concerned alleges general, vague and
omnibus allegation against the applicant
with regard to assault and there is no
allegation in the first information report nor
in the statement of informant of causing
any body pain, disease or infirmity to
informant. The counsel for opposite party
no.2 has not relied upon any medical report
nor any doctor is shown to have been
examined by investigating officer with
regard to any bodily pain, disease or
infirmity. In view of the aforesaid, the
prosecution case does not satisfy the
ingredients of offence under Sections 323
IPC
read
with
section
319
IPC.
28. In view of reasons stated herein above,
the criminal proceedings against Applicant
(namely-Rohit
Sharma)
including
chargesheet
dated
12.05.2019
under
sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and under section 3/4 of
Dowary Prohibition Act, 1961, Police
Station - Chaubeypur, District - Varanasi as
well as cognizance order dated 25.07.2019
in Criminal Case No. 999 of 2019 (State Vs
Anil Sharma and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 2 of 2019 under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of
Dowary Prohibition Act pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, District
Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby quashed in
respect of applicant - Rohit Sharma. The
present application under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is allowed.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28093 of 2025

Braham Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajrshi Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Criminal proceedings if accused exonerated
from the disciplinary proceeding

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act-13(1)(e),
13(2)-
Applicant's
income
was
Rs.
43,71,394.00/- but his expenditure during a
certain
period
was
Rs.
10395229.37/-
expenditure is disproportionate to his known
income-FIR
lodged-charge
sheet
filedcognizance-impugned-even if an accused has
been
exonerated
in
the
departmental
proceeding- on the basis of same set of
charges- criminal prosecution even on same
charges cannot be quashed-not the case that
prima facie alleged offences are not made out
against Applicant-Application dismissed. (E9)