# Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1085
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-31
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 739 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-ayush-tandon-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51231
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
482 - Inherent power, Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 325, 506, The
Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4,
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 -
Restitution of conjugal rights, Section 12 -
Voidable marriages - Criminal prosecution
cannot be allowed to be misused for
ulterior objective to put undue pressure
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the husband, his family members and
relatives for restitution of conjugal rights.
(Para - 30)

Wife filed a complaint under Section 156(3)
CrPC against husband and his family members -
after receiving summons for suit under Section
12 of Hindu Marriage Act & after Family Court's
deadline for filing written statement had passed
- alleging dowry harassment and cruelty - which
was decreed - wife's suit under Section 9 was
dismissed - wife's complaint was found to
contain general allegations without specific
incidents or evidence - magistrate found
contradictions in the wife's statements and did
not summon some accused family members due to
lack of specific allegations.(Para -1 to 11 ,26)

HELD: - Wife filed application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on applicants and other
members of their family for restitution of her matrimonial
relationship with Husband. Continuance of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants will be a gross abuse
of the process of law and will result in the failure of
justice to the applicants. Summoning order and related
criminal proceedings were quashed to prevent abuse of
the legal process. (Para - 30,32,33)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085
submitted then he can take cognizance for
such offence(s) too and can summon the
accused.

18. Therefore, the legal position is
settled beyond any confusion and I find no
force in the submission of the learned
Counsel for the applicant that when Section
354-B was not mentioned in the chargesheet, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of that offence.

19. Although some independent witnesses
gave statements contrary to the statement
of the victim but veracity of the statements
has to be evaluated by the trial court during
the trial, when the other party will have the
opportunity of cross examination the
witnesses. In CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 379, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has reiterated the cardinal principle
of law, that at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section482Cr.
P.C., the Court is not required to conduct
the mini trial. This is not the stage where
the prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges
are required to be proved during the trial on
the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency. At the
stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section482Cr. P.C., the
Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is
required
to
consider
"whether
any
sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not".

20. When the victim has categorically
stated the facts establishing commission of
offence under Section 354B IPC, there is
sufficient material to proceed further
against the applicant. The trial court was
well within its rights to take cognizance of
the offence under Section 354B IPC on the
basis
of
material
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer and available before
the court at the time of taking of the
cognizance.

21. Accordingly, I am of the
considered view that a case for trial of the
applicant under Section 323, 354B, 504 &
506 IPC is made out.

22. There is no illegality in the order
taking cognizance of the offence.

23. The application lacks merit and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1085
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 739 of 2024

Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Shashank Shekhar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal
Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
482 - Inherent power, Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 325, 506, The
Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4,
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 -
Restitution of conjugal rights, Section 12 -
Voidable marriages - Criminal prosecution
cannot be allowed to be misused for
ulterior objective to put undue pressure
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the husband, his family members and
relatives for restitution of conjugal rights.
(Para - 30)

Wife filed a complaint under Section 156(3)
CrPC against husband and his family members -
after receiving summons for suit under Section
12 of Hindu Marriage Act & after Family Court's
deadline for filing written statement had passed
- alleging dowry harassment and cruelty - which
was decreed - wife's suit under Section 9 was
dismissed - wife's complaint was found to
contain general allegations without specific
incidents or evidence - magistrate found
contradictions in the wife's statements and did
not summon some accused family members due to
lack of specific allegations.(Para -1 to 11 ,26)

HELD: - Wife filed application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on applicants and other
members of their family for restitution of her matrimonial
relationship with Husband. Continuance of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants will be a gross abuse
of the process of law and will result in the failure of
justice to the applicants. Summoning order and related
criminal proceedings were quashed to prevent abuse of
the legal process. (Para - 30,32,33)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Preeti Gupta Vs St. of Jharkh., (2010) 7 SCC
667

2. St. of Karn. Vs L. Muniswamy , (1977) 2 SCC
699

3. Mahmood Ali Vs St. of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 950

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

5. Abhishek Vs St. of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. The opposite party no. 2 appeared
in person and she has filed a counter
affidavit. She stated that she will advance
her submissions by herself, as she is not in
a position to afford to pay the fee of any
Advocate. The Court offered to provide the
services of an Advocate at the State's
expenses but she declined the. After this,
the
Court
proceeded
to
hear
the
submissions of Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra,
the learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A-I for
the State and Ms. Disha Kappor, the
opposite party no. 2 in person, who has
produced her Adhaar Card to establish
her identity.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
applicants have sought quashing of the
summoning order dated 08.11.2023 passed
by the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No. 27, Lucknow and
the entire proceedings of Complaint Case
No. 9780 of 2022 instituted in furtherance
of Miscellaneous Case No. 325/2022,
which was an application filed by the
opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C (Disha Tandon Vs. Ayush Tandon
and others) under Sections 498-A, 325, 506
I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
P.S. Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District
Lucknow, which is pending in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room
No. 27, Lucknow.

3. The opposite party no.2 had filed
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against 10 persons - (i) Ayush
Tandon son of Amit Tandon (the applicant
no.1) (ii) Ashutosh Tandon 'Gopal Ji', son
of Lalji Tondon (Minister, Government of
Uttar Pradesh) (iii)- Madhu Tandon wife of
Ashutosh Tandon (iv) Subodh Tandon, son
of Lalji Tandon (v)-Vandana Tandon wife
of Subodh Tandon (vi) Amit Tandon, son of
Lalji Tandon (the applicant no.2) (vii)-
2 All. Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1087
Namita Tandon wife of Amit Tandon (the
applicant no. 3) (viii) Teeru Khanna
daughter of Ashutosh Tandon (ix)- Saloni
Sehgal daughter of Amit Tandon (x) Vansh
Tandon son of Subodh Tandon, stating that
she got married to the applicant no.1 on
11.12.2019.
The
grandfather
of
the
applicant no.1 used to treat the opposite
party no.2 affectionately and respectfully
but after his death, all the accused persons
used to harass her mentally and they used
to abuse and beat her. Uncle of the
applicant no.1, who was an Hon'ble
Minister, used to encourage him to beat his
wife. About two months after death of the
grandfather of the applicant no.1, the
opposite party no.2 was turned out of her
matrimonial home on 28.09.2020. Prior to
it, the entire family had harassed the
opposite party no.2 and applicant no.1 had
beaten her and caused a fracture in her
hand. When the opposite party no.2 went to
her matrimonial home on 08.10.2020, all the
accused persons had treated her badly. Uncle of
the applicant no.1 had threatened the opposite
party no.2 to get the opposite party no.2 shot by
his
matrimonial
uncle
Chandra
Mohan
Mehrotra (who had not been arrayed as a party
to the application filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C). On the first wedding anniversary of the
opposite party no.2 summons of a suit for
annulment of marriage was issued by the
Family Court. The opposite party no.2
categorically stated in the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that she merely
wants that she should be given the same respect
by her husband and his family members as was
given during the lifetime of the grandfather of
the applicant no.1 but the uncle of the applicant
no.1 keeps on threatening her because of his
high political position.

4. It was further stated in the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that when the
opposite party no.2 had gone with her mother to
meet her husband on 16.12.2021, the accused
persons abused them from the balcony,
threatened them, and stated that till the opposite
party no.2 gave Rs. 50 lakhs and a Fortuner car
in dowry, she will not be able to live in her
matrimonial home. She gave an application to
the police on 02.01.2022, but she was
pressurized to withdraw her complaint. She
gave several applications to the authorities but
no action was taken thereon, and, therefore, she
filed the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

5. On 24.02.2022, the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow passed
an order on the aforesaid stating that the
opposite party no.2 and the applicant no.1 are
husband and wife and the other persons
impleaded in the application are members of the
husband's family. Matrimonial disputes are
pending between the parties. The nature of
allegations levelled in the complaint does
not require any investigation by the police
and, therefore, it would be just and proper
to register the application as a complaint.

6. In the statement of the opposite
party no.2 recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C, she stated that her parents had
fulfilled the demands of dowry made by the
family members of Ayush Tandon by
selling away their property. The demand for
dowry started on the date following the day
of her marriage and when she declined, all
the accused persons started harassing her
mentally and physically and she was
taunted for bringing less dowry. When she
used to take some medicines or go out to
get medical treatment, she was locked up in
a room. She stated that she had been beaten
and turned out of her matrimonial home on
28.09.2020 and when she went to the house
of her husband on 08.10.2020, all the
accused persons had threaten to get her
killed
through
one
Chandra
Mohan
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mehrotra and all the accused persons had
pressurized the applicant no. 1 to get his
marriage with the opposite party no.2
dissolved. The accused persons had called
her to talk for a settlement on 16.12.2020
and when she went there, accused Subodh
Tandon had stated while standing in a
balcony that the applicant can live in her
matrimonial home only if she bring Rs. 50
lakhs and a Fortuner car.

7. The statement of the mother and
brother of the opposite party no.2 were
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Her
brother stated that his family members had
spent
Rs.50
Lakhs
in
the
wedding
ceremony after selling and mortgaging
land. Since immediately the marriage, the
accused persons used to taunt the opposite
party no. 2 that she was from a poor family.
The mother of the opposite party no. 2
stated that opposite party no.2 was harassed
even during the lifetime of the grandfather
of the applicant no.1 and she was harassed
for demanding Rs. 50 lakhs and a Fortuner
car. In June 2021, she sold some property
for Rs.85. Lakhs and arranged Rs.1.5
Lakhs more and gave it to the applicant no.
1.

8. The opposite party no.2 has filed a
counter affidavit opposing the application
wherein she has inter alia stated that even
after she was turned out of her matrimonial
home, she was hopeful of improvement in
the behaviour of her husband and his
family members. The applicant no.1 used to
repetitively talk to her through mobile
phone and assure that he will take her back
to her matrimonial home. When the
applicant no.1 did not take the opposite
party no. 2 to his home, she tried to lodge a
report with the police but her report was
not registered. Thereafter she sent an
application dated 11.12.2022 to the State
Women Commission for lodging an F.I.R,
but no action was taken thereon. After
sometime, the opposite party no.2 got
information of petition for annulment of
her marriage. She has not accepted the
decree and has not withdrawn the amount
of ₹30 lakhs and has filed an appeal against
the decree.

9. In para 22 of the counter affidavit,
the opposite party no.2 has stated that after
her marriage, she had gone for honeymoon
with the applicant no. 1 to Dubai and the
opposite party no.2 and the applicant no.1
both were very happy during the trip. The
opposite party no.2 has further stated in the
counter affidavit that the applicants are
high profile political persons connected
with the ruling party and several respected
advocates have declined to accept her case
and, therefore, she has decided to conduct
the
case
herself.
Numerous
other
allegations have been levelled in the
counter affidavit, which were not there in
the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the marriage
between the opposite party no.2 and the
applicant
no.1
was
solemnized
on
11.12.2019. On 28.10.2020 the applicant
no.1 had filed a suit no. 2790 of 2020 under
Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act in the
Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lucknow. The opposite party no.2 appeared
before the Family Court on 17.12.2020 but
in spite of repetitive opportunities, she did
not file a written statement. On 23.02.2021,
the Family Court passed an order giving
last opportunity to the opposite party no.2
to
file
her
written
statement.
On
17.01.2022, she filed the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C alleging harassment
by the applicants and numerous other
2 All. Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1089
persons related to them for demanding
dowry. Thereafter she filed her written
statement on 20.04.2022 and she also filed
a Suit No. 349 of 2022 for restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. Both the suits have
been decided by means of a common
judgment dated 18.08.2023 whereby suit
number 2790 of 2020 filed by the applicant
no.1 under Section 12 of the Hindu
Marriage Act has been decreed and suit
number 349 of 2022 filed by the opposite
party no.2 under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act has been dismissed. The
Family Court has ordered the applicant
no.1 to pay sum of Rs. 30 lakhs only to the
opposite party no.2 as permanent alimony.
The applicant no.1 has already deposited
the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs before the
Family Court. However, the opposite party
no.2 has filed first Appeal No. 177 of 2023
against the judgment and decree dated
18.08.2023 passed by the Family Court and
she has not withdrawn the amount of Rs. 30
lakhs deposited by the applicant no. 1.

11. In light of the aforesaid facts, the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicants is that the complaint has been
filed as an abuse of the process of law for
pressurizing the applicants for a favourable
outcome in the matrimonial litigation
between the parties.

12. The opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the applicants have wrongly
stated in the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C, that they have no criminal history
whereas the applicant no.1 and 2 are
accused in F.I.R No. 142 of 2020, Police
station, Mall, District Lucknow West, under
Sections 447, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da)
3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act. However, besides
lodging of the F.I.R, nothing further has
been disclosed in the counter affidavit and
in response to a specific query put by the
Court, as to what was the outcome of the
investigation in furtherance of the F.I.R.
and whether the applicant nos. 1 and 2 have
been summoned in that case or a final
report has been submitted, the opposite
party no.2 stated that she is not aware about
the further status of the case after lodging
the F.I.R.

13. The opposite party no.2 next
submitted that she has implicated only
those family members of the applicant
no.1, who had only actually committed
offences against her and had it been her
intention to implicate the entire family of
the applicant no.1, she would have arrayed
the grandfather and grandmother of the
applicant no.1 also.

14. The opposite party no.2 lastly
submitted that she had filed Writ C No.
1261 of 2022 and it is recorded in the order
dated 06.04.2022 passed by the division
bench in that case that the parties were
willing to make efforts for settlement of the
dispute through the process of mediation.
The applicant no.1 was directed to deposit
a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court but he did
not comply with the order by depositing the
aforesaid amount. The opposite party no.2
has submitted that she merely wants
restitution of her matrimonial relationship
and she is making every endeavour with the
aforesaid objective. She has filed an appeal
before this court challenging the order
passed by the Family Court dismissing her
suit for restitution of conjugal rights and
decreeing the suit filed by the applicant
no.1 under Section 12 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.

15. Sri. Anurag Verma, learned
A.G.A-I stated that the proceedings arise
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
out of an Application filed under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C
filed
by
the
private
respondent no.2 which has been registered
as a complaint and the state is merely a
formal party. However, Sri Verma opposed
the application and submitted that while
deciding an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C, the court has to look into the
allegations levelled by the complainant only
and to see whether a case for trial is made out
on the basis of allegation of the complainant
herself and the court cannot look into the
defence taken by the accused persons.

16. I have considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicants, the opposite party no.1 in person
and the learned A.G.A.-I. Before proceeding
to analyze the same, it will be appropriate to
recollect the law regarding the scope of
enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17. While dealing with the scope of
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a
case arising out of matrimonial disputes, the
Hon'ble held in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, that: -

"14.This Court in a number of
cases has laid down the scope and ambit of
courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every
High Court has inherent power to act ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for
the administration of which alone it exists, or to
prevent the abuse of process of court. Inherent
power under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the
Code;

(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of
court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice.
* * *

18.The powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. The Court
must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but
the Court's failing to use the power for
advancement of justice can also lead to grave
injustice.

* * *

21.This Court inState of Karnatakav.L.
Muniswamy[(1977) 2 SCC 699] observed that
the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC
entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding
when it comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse
of process of court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been invested
with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A
court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In this case, the Court observed
that ends of justice are higher than the ends of
mere law though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. This
case has been followed in a large number of
subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

* * *

30.It is a matter of common knowledge
that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is
rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts
in our country including this Court are
flooded with matrimonial cases. This
clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest
in the family life of a large number of
people of the society.

* * *

35.The ultimate object of justice is to
find out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is
2 All. Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1091
a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration
while
dealing
with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have
an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required
to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection."

18. In Mahmood Ali versus State of
U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the
inherent
powers
under
Section482of
theCode of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) or
extraordinary
jurisdiction
under
Article226of theConstitutionto get the FIR
or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section482of theCrPCor
Article226of
theConstitutionneed
not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of
investigation."

19. What appears from the material
placed before this court by the applicants
and the opposite party no.2 is that the
opposite party no.2 got married to the
applicant no.1 on 11.12.2019. The grandfather of the applicant no. 1 was Governor
of Madhya Pradesh and an uncle of the
applicant was a Minister in U. P.
Government. She stated that the Grandfather of the applicant no. 1 had brought
her as his Grand daughter-in-law with great
enthusiasm and expectations and he always
treated her with affection and respect. After
his death, all the 10 accused persons started
harassing her mentally, abusing and beating
her. However, she has not pleaded any
specific incident caused by each of the 10
accused persons. She has alleged that she
was turned out of her matrimonial home on
28.09.2020, two months after the death of
the Grand-father of the applicant no. 1.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Although she has alleged that she was
beaten up and a fracture was caused in her
hand,
no
medical
documents
were
produced
by
her
either
before
the
Magistrate or with the counter affidavit
filed in this Court to support this
contention.

20. Although she has stated in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
that she was treated with great affection
and respect by the grandfather of the
applicant no.1 and her ill treatment and
harassment started after his death, in the
statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 stated that
she was harassed for demanding dowry
from the day following the date of her
marriage. At the same time, in the counter
affidavit filed before this court, she stated
that after the marriage, she had gone with
her husband for honeymoon to Dubai and
both of them had a very pleasant trip. The
aforesaid stands taken by the opposite party
no.2
at
various
stages
show
gross
contradiction regarding material facts about
her complaint.

21. The Magistrate has himself
mentioned in the impugned order dated
08.11.2023,
that
there
are
many
contradictions in the stand taken by the
opposite party no.2 in the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in the
statements recorded under Section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. It is stated in the complaint that
the grandfather of the applicant no.1 had
brought her as her grand daughter-in-law
with great enthusiasm and after his death,
she was harassed by the husband's family
members,
whereas
in
her
statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, she
stated that her harassment had started
immediately after her marriage. In the
complaint, the opposite party no.2 has
stated that the marriage was solemnized
with great pomp and show as per the desire
of the grandfather of the applicant no.1
whereas, in her evidence, she stated that her
family
members
had
got
marriage
solemnized after selling some land and
mortgaging some other. The learned
Magistrate further recorded that the record
reveals that some incidents took place due
to lack of matrimonial adjustments between
the parties and, accordingly, there was
sufficient ground to summon the applicants
only, who are the husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the opposite party
no.2, to face trial for offences 498-A, 325,
506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Regarding the other persons arrayed
by the opposite party no.2, the Magistrate
came to a conclusion that no specific
allegation had been levelled against them
and there was no need to summon them in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another: (2012) 10 SCC 741.

22. However, the learned Magistrate
erred in summoning the applicants to face
the trial without there being any specific
allegation of commission of any act by the
applicant nos. 2 and 3 which may amount
to an offence. Moreover, there is absolutely
no material to support the allegations
against the applicant no. 1.

23. It is not disputed that the opposite
party no.2 received summon of the suit
under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage
Act filed by the applicant no. 1 and she had
put in appearance before the family court
on 17.12.2020 and had sought time for
filing written statement. When the opposite
party no. 2 did not file her written
statement, on 23.02.2021, the Family Court
had
passed
an
order
granting
last
2 All. Shri Ayush Tandon & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1093
opportunity to the opposite party no. 2 to
file her written statement. The application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was filed on
17.01.2022 and the written statement was
filed on 20.04.2022. On the same day, the
opposite party no.2 filed a suit under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The
suit filed by the applicant no.1 under
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage act has
been decreed and the suit filed by the
opposite party no.2 under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed by
means of a common judgment dated to
18.08.2023.

24. While decreeing the suit under
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
family Court has directed the applicant no.
1 to pay Rs. 30 lakhs to the opposite party
no.2 as permanent alimony, which amount
has been deposited by the applicant no.1
before the Family Court. The opposite
party no. 2 has not withdrawn this amount
and she has filed an appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the Family
Court, which is pending consideration of
this court.

25. In Abhishek versus State of
M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
where the wife had levelled general
allegations against her husband and his
family members, the same is insufficient to
constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498-A
IPC. This factor is also damaging to the
case of the complainant that she filed a
complaint alleging dowry harassment, long
after leaving her matrimonial home and just
before the
husband initiated
divorce
proceedings.

26. In the present case, the complaint
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
has been filed after receipt of summon of
the suit and after the suit filed under
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and
after the Family Court had granted last
opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to
file her written statement and even after the
date of that last opportunity had expired.

27. The opposite party no.2 had stated
in her complaint that when she went to her
matrimonial home on 08.10.2020, all the
accused persons had treated her badly; that
the uncle of the applicant no.1, who was a
Minister, had threatened to get her shot by
his matrimonial uncle Chandra Mohan
Mehrotra (who had not been arrayed as a
party to the application filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C), whereas in her statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., she
stated that on 08.10.2020, all the accused
persons had threaten to get her killed
through one Chandra Mohan Mehrotra.

28. It also seems to be absurd that the
family of the opposite party no. 2 had got
her married to the applicant no. 1, who is
the Grand-son of a Governor and nephew
of a Minister, by selling away and
mortgaging their land and long after her
marriage and her having been turned out of
her matrimonial home on 28.09.2020, when
she had gone with her mother to meet her
husband on 16.12.2021, the accused
persons abused and threatened them and
demanded Rs. 50 lakhs and a Fortuner car,
and that too, while they were standing in
the balcony of their house. In her statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. she
assigned the role of demanding Rs. 50
lakhs and a Fortuner car to the co-accused
Subodh Tandon, who has not been
summoned.

29.

The
opposite
party
no.2
categorically stated in the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that she
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely wants that she should be given the
same respect by her husband and his family
members as was given during the lifetime
of the grandfather of the applicant no.1 but
the uncle of the applicant no.1 keeps on
threatening her because of his high political
position. In the counter affidavit filed
before this Court, the opposite party no.2
has stated that even after she was turned
out of her matrimonial home, she was
hopeful of improvement in the behaviour of
her husband and his family members. The
applicant no.1 used to repetitively talk to
her through mobile phone and assure that
he will take her back to her matrimonial
home. When the applicant no.1 did not take
the opposite party no. 2 to his home, she
tried to lodge a report. During oral
submissions also, she has submitted that
she merely wants restitution of her
matrimonial relationship and she is making
every
endeavour
with
the
aforesaid
objective.

30. From the aforesaid facts, it
appears that the opposite party no.2 has
filed the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on the
applicants and other members of their
family for restitution of her matrimonial
relationship
with the applicant no.1.
However, she had filed a suit under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the same
objective, which has been dismissed by the
Family Court. Criminal prosecution cannot
be allowed to be misused for ulterior
objective to put undue pressure on the
husband, his family members and relatives
for restitution of conjugal rights.

31. The foundation of a strong
matrimonial relationship is mutual love and
respect and the sustainability and quality of
matrimonial relations restored under threat
of criminal prosecution is to be pondered
by the opposite party no. 2 herself and this
Court is refraining from making any
observation in this regard.

32. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuance of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants will be a
gross abuse of the process of law and will
result in the failure of justice to the
applicants.

33. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the order dated 08.11.2023
passed by the court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Room
No.
27,
Lucknow
along
with
the
criminal
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9780
of 2022 in Miscellaneous Case No.
325/2022, which was an application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, is hereby
quashed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1094
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 771 of 2024

Naseem ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anand Mani Tripathi, Yugal Kishor Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 34, 504 & 506 -