# Smt. Neha Tripathi @ Neha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 9112 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neha-tripathi-neha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52355
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860-
Section
498-A-Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 -
Quashing of proceedings - Scope of
Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Malicious Prosecution - The applicant is a
friend of the coM.P.lainant's husband,-seeks
the quashing of the entire proceedings -she
was neither the husband nor a relative of the
husband of the coM.P.lainant- the applicant
was allegedly iM.P.licated solely based on
call details- showing conversations with the
coM.P.lainant's husband who was a former
classmate-only the husband or his relatives
can be charged for subjecting a woman to
cruelty-no
evidence
to
show
that
the
applicant conspired with the husband of the
coM.P.lainant to cause harm or to further
any unlawful object, such as facilitating
divorce or cruelty- unnecessarily iM.P.licated
due to the coM.P.lainant's suspicion about an
illicit relationship-which was not supported
by any evidence of wrongful conduct.-the
prosecution
against
the
applicant
is
malicious, proceedings quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

## Text

424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 9 ILRA 424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9112 of 2019

Smt. Neha Tripathi @ Neha ...Applicant
 Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay

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

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860-
Section
498-A-Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 -
Quashing of proceedings - Scope of
Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Malicious Prosecution - The applicant is a
friend of the coM.P.lainant's husband,-seeks
the quashing of the entire proceedings -she
was neither the husband nor a relative of the
husband of the coM.P.lainant- the applicant
was allegedly iM.P.licated solely based on
call details- showing conversations with the
coM.P.lainant's husband who was a former
classmate-only the husband or his relatives
can be charged for subjecting a woman to
cruelty-no
evidence
to
show
that
the
applicant conspired with the husband of the
coM.P.lainant to cause harm or to further
any unlawful object, such as facilitating
divorce or cruelty- unnecessarily iM.P.licated
due to the coM.P.lainant's suspicion about an
illicit relationship-which was not supported
by any evidence of wrongful conduct.-the
prosecution
against
the
applicant
is
malicious, proceedings quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rishabh Kumar Pandey
holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant, Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3
and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 11843 of 2018 (State of
U.P. Vs. Naveen Kumar Verma and others
) arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of
2017 under section 498-A, 506, 120-B
I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (in short, 'the D.P. Act'), Police
Station- Civil Lines District Allahabad,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad as well as charge
sheet No. 134 of 2018 dated 30.6.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that no offence, whatsoever can
be said to have been made out against the
applicant herein as for the offence under
section 498-A I.P.C., the accused must be
either husband or relative of the husband of
the victim. The applicant herein is neither
the husband nor the relative of the husband
of the opposite party no. 3, therefore, she is
not covered within the provisions of section
498-A I.P.C. and no offence whatsoever
can be said to have been made out against
the applicant herein. Similarly no offence
under section 3/4 of D.P. Act can be said to
have been made out against the applicant as
she is not a family member or remote
family member of the husband of the
opposite party no. 3. It is further submitted
that though the applicant herein has been
implicated in the instant case only on the
9 All. Smt. Neha Tripathi @ Neha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
basis of some call details according to
which husband of the opposite party no. 3
and
applicant
were
having
long
conversation but the fact is that the husband
of the opposite party no. 3 and the applicant
were classmate and are good friends and
the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on
the basis of suspicion on the part of the
opposite party no. 3. No overt act has been
alleged against the applicant except that she
was in the talking terms with the husband
of the opposite party no. 3. Similarly no
offence under section 120-B I.P.C. would
be made out against the applicant herein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 3 submitted that it is
only
because
of
the
applicant,
the
matrimonial life of the opposite party no. 3
has been spoiled and she has been ignored
by her husband and various allegations
have been made against the applicant and
the husband of the opposite party no. 3 and
a divorce petition has been filed by the
husband of the opposite party no. 3 due to
intervention by the applicant herein.
Therefore, she was abetting the husband of
the opposite party no. 3 to divorce the
opposite party no. 3 with object to torture
and harass her, therefore, she was also
involved in view of the provisions of the
section 120-B I.P.C. in the offence.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand
submitted that as per call details collected
by
the
Investigating
Officer,
it
is
established that there was continuous
conversation between the applicant and the
husband of the opposite party no. 3,
therefore, it should be presumed that she
was abetting the husband of the opposite
party no. 3 to divorce his wife/opposite
party no. 3 for which cruelty was being
committed by the husband upon the
opposite party no. 3 at the behest of the
applicant herein. Therefore she is also
involved in the offence.

6. Having considered the rival
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 the
applicant herein is allegedly the friend of
the husband of the opposite party no.3. As
they were the college friends and used to
talk to one another, the applicant herein has
been implicated in the instant case for
demand of dowry and harassment by the
husband and the in-laws of the opposite
party no.3. She has been implicated in the
instant case with the strength of Section
128 I.P.C.

7. Before proceeding further it would
be relevant to take note of the provisions
of Sections 498-A, 506, 120B I.P.C. as well
as 3/4 of the D.P. Act, for which the
applicant has also been charged.

Sections 120-B, 498A, 506 I.P.C.

"120-B. Punishment of criminal
conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for
life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of
two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a
criminal conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy
to
commit
an
offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both."

Section
498-A.
Husband
or
relative of husband of a woman subjecting
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.]

"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
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:
9 All. Smt. Neha Tripathi @ Neha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427

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."

8. From the plain reading of Section
498-A I.P.C., the offence can be made out
under Section 498-A I.P.C. only against the
husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, who allegedly subjects such
woman to cruelty. The explanation under
Section 498-A of I.P.C. defines what
'cruelty' means for the purpose of Section
498-A I.P.C. It provides that, (1) 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 (2) 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 demand.

9. From the allegations as made in the
instant case, there is no allegation of any
harassment about the demand of dowry on
the part of the applicant herein.

10. The applicant herein is neither the
husband nor the relative of the husband but
a friend of the husband and a friend of a
husband cannot be in any way covered
within the phrase of relative of the
husband. Further, there is no allegation in
the instant case with regard to any demand
of dowry made by the applicant no.1 or any
harassment for such demand of dowry.
Further, there is no allegation of any wilful
conduct by the applicant no. 1 herein,
which is likely to try the opposite party
no.2 to commit suicide or cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Therefore, from the facts of the instant case
no offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., is
made out against the applicant herein.

11. Similarly, the provisions of 3/4
D.P. Act, would also not attract towards the
applicant herein as there is no allegation of
any demand of dowry by the applicant
herein nor she can by any stretch of
imagination be said to be the beneficiary of
such dowry, if it is fulfilled. Further, there
is no allegation of any sort that the
applicant herein has ever talked or directly
interfered in the matrimonial life of the
opposite party no.2 and her husband except
she was in talking terms with the opposite
party no.2.

12. Therefore, in the considered opinion
of this Court none of the offences as alleged
in the instant case against the applicant herein
can be said to have been made out and the
applicant herein has been made an accused
and has been maliciously prosecuted by the
opposite party no.3 due to her suspicion of
illicit relationship of the applicant with the
husband of the opposite party no3., without
there being any action. They were alleged to
have been on talking terms, being the college
friends. Therefore, the instant case is nothing
but a malicious prosecution of the applicant
herein
by
the
opposite
party
no.3.
Consequently, the instant application is
allowed and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case. No. Criminal Case No.
11843 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Naveen
Kumar Verma and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 490 of 2017 under sections 498-A,
506, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police
Station- Civil Lines, District Allahabad,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad as well as charge sheet
No. 134 of 2018 dated 30.6.2018, are hereby
quashed qua the applicant herein.
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9501 of 2019

Raghav Kumar ...Applicant
 Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gaurav Kakkar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Rajesh Kumar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - Rape - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of
charge-sheet - Scope of interference by High Court
- Principles reiterated - Allegation of non-consensual
physical relationship, initially based on cheating and
threat
perception
-
Subsequent
consensual
relationship under threat - Prima facie offence under
Section 376 IPC made out - Investigation concluded
no substantial evidence of forcible rape, but threat
and manipulation established -Proceedings allowed
to continue in trial court.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs St. of Mah.
(2019) 18 SCC 191
2. Shivashankar Vs St. of Karn. & ors. (2019) 18
SCC 204

3. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs the St. of Mah.
& anr.: (2019) 9 SCC 608

4. Jiyaullah Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(Application u/S
482 No. 5419 of 2021)
5. Kaini Rajan Vs St. of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC
113

6. Anurag Soni Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 13
SCC 1

7. Deepak Gulati Vs St. of Har., (2013) 7 SCC
675

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

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
None appears on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 even in the revised call to press
the instant application.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing
of
the
charge-sheet
dated
13.12.2018 in Case No. 6910204 of 2018
arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2018
u/S 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-
Mahila Thana, District- Agra, pending in
the court of learned District and Sessions
Judge, Agra.

FACTS

3. The facts in brief are that the
opposite
party
no.2
herein
initially
submitted a complaint dated 12.11.2018
before the Additional Director General of
Police,
Agra
Zone,
Agra,
seeking
registration of the F.I.R. and strict action
against the applicant herein. On the
aforesaid complaint, as per the direction of
the Additional Director General of Police,
the instant F.I.R. has been registered at
Women
Police
Station,
Agra,
on
15.11.2018, whereby the Case Crime No.
211 of 2018 was registered for the offences
under Sections 504, 506, 328, 34, 376