# Surendra Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2020
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53104
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 406 & 506 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of -
Summoning order was non-speaking order
which was on typed proforma, in which
gaps filled with pen - Court concerned not
given any reason for summoning accused
persons - Allegations against husband for
offence
u/s
377
I.P.C.
found
false,
exonerated
-
Other
two
co-accused
persons
(nand
and
nandoi)
assigned
general role, exonerated - Husband along
with other family members were accused
in F.I.R., lodged with inordinate delay of
05 months. (Para 30)

Both are well educated, well placed
persons - Dispute was purely matrimonial
in nature - Couple have travelled to
various foreign places - Clash of ego
carried on for long time, resulted in
lodging
of
F.I.R.
and
complaint
-
Allegations for violence alleged to have
taken place in 2018-2019 after 02 years of
marriage - Complainant carries multiple
prayers including return of "Streedhan" -
Complainant have been assaulted and
beaten by her husband, no supporting
documents to show injury received by her
- Allegations are general and omnibus -
Complaint filed with intention to implicate
maximum number of family members for
obvious reasons. (Para 31, 33)

Applications allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 86,108. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
counsels. It is noticeable in the
background of our society, that generally
the party appears through their advocates
and they, after briefing them, pay the fees
and solely trust upon the advocates to do
rest of the things. Such parties are the
villagers and belongs to the rural area and it
is not expected from them that may have
knowledge of the court's procedure. Once
such party/person engaged the lawyer then
he put himself in a confidence that the
lawyer will look after his interest , but there
is other side of the coin that if a lawyer
works with due diligence, but some sorts of
his inadvertence, he commits some fault,
then that cannot be termed the fault
committed by the party and therefore, such
person should not be held liable for the
faults/lapses on the part of their counsels.
This aspect of the matter has currently been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Ashok Kumar v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2024 1
SCC 357.

15. This Court is also aware of the
wide and plentitude power given under
sections 528 of B.N.S.S. (Old section 482
of Cr.P.C.) and at the same time, the
limitation thereof. In the instant case, prima
facie, there seems to be some lapse on the
part of the counsel of the applicant, might
be inadvertent, though apparent from the
facts and circumstances of the case and if
this Court would not invoked the inherent
powers, this would cause grave injustice to
the applicant and would be left remedyless, which is impermissible under the
scheme of constitution of India.

16. Consequently, the relief sought
by
the
applicant
vide
the
present
applicaiton seems to be genuine and
therefore, the order dated 03.08.2024
passed by the learned trial court is hereby
kept in abeyance.

17. Further the applicant had also
approached the learned revisional court and
the revisional court has passed the order
dated 05.11.2024 in Criminal Revision
bearing No. 558/2024, while affirming the
order dated 03.08.2024 and therefore, the
same is also kept in abeyance.

18. In view of the above-said, the
applicant is given liberty to move a fresh
application under the strict purview of
section 33 of Act 1872, with the right
texture and prayer, within a period of 30
days and if such, application is moved by
the applicant, the same shall be decided by
the trial court, within further period of
thirty days, after giving opportunity to all
concerned.

19. Accordingly, the application is
hereby allowed.
---------
(2025) 2 ILRA 107
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2020
With
Application U/S 482 No. 18261 of 2022
With
Application U/S 482 No. 36143 of 2022
With
Application U/S 482 No. 4446 of 2020

Surendra Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Asha Parihar, Pradeep Chandra (Senior
Adv.), Pratik Chandra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Gajendra Kumar Gautam, Mandvi
Tripathi, Rahul Kumar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 406 & 506 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of -
Summoning order was non-speaking order
which was on typed proforma, in which
gaps filled with pen - Court concerned not
given any reason for summoning accused
persons - Allegations against husband for
offence
u/s
377
I.P.C.
found
false,
exonerated
-
Other
two
co-accused
persons
(nand
and
nandoi)
assigned
general role, exonerated - Husband along
with other family members were accused
in F.I.R., lodged with inordinate delay of
05 months. (Para 30)

Both are well educated, well placed
persons - Dispute was purely matrimonial
in nature - Couple have travelled to
various foreign places - Clash of ego
carried on for long time, resulted in
lodging
of
F.I.R.
and
complaint
-
Allegations for violence alleged to have
taken place in 2018-2019 after 02 years of
marriage - Complainant carries multiple
prayers including return of "Streedhan" -
Complainant have been assaulted and
beaten by her husband, no supporting
documents to show injury received by her
- Allegations are general and omnibus -
Complaint filed with intention to implicate
maximum number of family members for
obvious reasons. (Para 31, 33)

Applications allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr. Vs Special
Judicial Magistrate & ors. : (1998) 5 SCC 749

2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I. : (2015) 4 SCC
609

3. Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad
Tunda & ors. : (2015) 12 SCC 420

4. Krishna Lal Chawla & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
: (2015) 12 SCC 420

5. Inox Air Products Ltd. Now Known As Inox Air
Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs The St. of Andhra Pradesh:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 209, (Paras 33 to 37)

6. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.:
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383

7. Sachin Garg Vs St. of U.P. & anr. : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 82

8. JM Laboratories & ors. Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh & anr. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 208,
(Paras 8, 9)

9. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bihar : (2022) 6
SCC 599, (Paras 10 to 17)

10. Payal Sharma Vs St. of Pun. & anr. : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3473, (Paras 9 to 11)

11. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & ors. Vs St. of
Telangana & anr., (Paras 11 to 16, 25, 28 to 31)

12. Geddam Jhansi Vs The St. of Telangana :
2025 INSC 160, SLP (Criminal) No. 428 of 2024,
decided on 07.02.2025, (Paras 31 to 36)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. These are four petitions filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. which are connected
together in compliance of the orders
connecting them together.

2.
Dispute
in
the
matter
is
matrimonial in nature after matrimonial
alliance was between Piyush Kaushal the
son of Sri Surendra Kumar and Kumari
Paru the daughter of Sri Pawan Kumar
Taneja.

3. The Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2020 has been filed
2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
by the applicants Surendra Kumar and Smt.
Usha with the following prayers:-

 "It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the entire
proceedings of Case No. 24185 of 2019
(State vs. Piyush Kaushal and others )
arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2019,
under Sections 498A, 406, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad
pending before learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, District
Ghaziabad as well as to quash the charge
sheet dated 02.12.2019 and also the
cognizance taking order dated 19.12.2019
passed in the aforesaid case, otherwise the
applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in any
terms.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to stay the further proceedings of Case No.
24185 of 2019 (State vs. Piyush Kaushal
and others ) arising out of Case Crime No.
149 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 406,
506 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 8, District Ghaziabad
and also to stay the effect and operation of
the impugned cognizance taking order
dated 19.12.2019 passed in the aforesaid
case, during the pendency of the present
application, otherwise the applicants shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury which
cannot be compensated in any terms."

4. The Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 18261 of 2022 has been filed
by the applicants Smt. Usha, Surendra
Kaushal, Pooja Batla and Rajat Batla with
the following prayers:-

"It
is,
therefore,
Most
Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to quash the
entire proceedings of Case No. 3463/2021
filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2005, u/s
17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of Act, 2005, Police
Station Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad
(Paru Taneja Vs. Piyush Kaushal and
others) pending before Civil Judge, Junior
Division/FTC-1 (Crime Against Women),
District- Ghaziabad.

And/or pass such other and
further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

5. The Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 36143 of 2022 has been filed
by the applicant Piyush Kaushal with the
following prayers:-

"It
is,
therefore,
Most
Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to quash the
entire proceedings of Case No. 3463/2021
filed under Section 12 of The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, u/s
17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of Act, 2005, Police
Station Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad
(Paru Taneja Vs. Piyush Kaushal and
others) pending before Civil Judge, Junior
Division/FTC-1 (Crime Against Women),
District- Ghaziabad and further to stay the
further proceedings of Case No. 3463/2021
filed under Section 12 of The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, u/s
17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of Act, 2005, Police
Station Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad
(Paru Taneja Vs. Piyush Kaushal and
others)
before
Civil
Judge,
Junior
Division/FTC-1 (Crime Against Women),
District- Ghaziabad and further not to
initiate coercive measure against the
applicant, else the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensated in any term, else the applicant
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury
which cannot be compensated in any term.

And/or pass such other and
further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

6. The Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 4446 of 2020 has been filed
by the applicant Piyush Kaushal with the
following prayers:-

"It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the entire
proceedings of Case No. 24185 of 2019
(State vs. Piyush Kaushal and others )
arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2019,
under Sections 498A, 406, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad
pending before learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, District
Ghaziabad as well as to quash the charge
sheet dated 02.12.2019 and also the
cognizance taking order dated 19.12.2019
passed in the aforesaid case, otherwise the
applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in any
terms.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to stay the further proceedings of Case No.
24185 of 2019 (State vs. Piyush Kaushal
and others ) arising out of Case Crime No.
140 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 406,
506 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 8, District Ghaziabad
and also to stay the effect and operation of
the impugned cognizance taking order
dated 19.12.2019 passed in the aforesaid
case, during the pendency of the present
application, otherwise the applicant shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury which
cannot be compensated in any terms."

7. In Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 4446 of 2020 an order was
passed on 07.11.2023 which reads as
under:-

"1. List revised.

2. Heard Ms. Asha Parihar,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay
Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and
perused the records.

3. Sri Gajendra Kumar Gautam,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
is not present even when the matter has
been taken up in the revised list.

4. On 03.10.2023 also there was no
representation from the side of the opposite party
no. 2 and in the interest of justice, the matter was
adjourned. Today also there is no representation
on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

5. In view of the same in the
interest of justice, the matter is adjourned
for today.

6. Let the matter be listed on
29.1.2024.

7. Interim order, if any, shall
remain in currency till the next date of
listing."

8. Against the said order dated
07.11.2023, Ramneek Taneja the mother of
Kumari Paru filed a Special Leave Petition
(Criminal)
Diary
No(s).
4776/2024,
Ramneek Taneja vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, which was although
dismissed by the Apex Court vide order
dated 15.07.2024 but request was made to
the High Court to expedite the hearing of
the
case
bearing
Criminal
Misc.
Application No. 4446/2020. The said order
dated 15.07.2024 reads as under:-
2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111

"Delay condoned.

This
impugned
order
being
interim in nature, we do not find any
ground
to
interfere
with
the
same.
However, we find force in the grievance of
the petitioner that the matter has been
languishing without adjudication for four
years. Thus, we request the High Court to
expedite the hearing of the case bearing
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4446/2020.

The Special Leave Petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if
any, stand disposed of."

9. Hearing of all the four petitions
concluded on 09.01.2025 but subsequent to
conclusion of hearing, learned counsels for
the
parties
submitted
that
although
arguments in the matter have concluded but
still efforts for amicable settlement of the
dispute between the parties is in the pipeline which is expected to get a final touch
within a period of two weeks and they shall
be intimating the Court about the outcome
of the same within the said period.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, Sri Prateek Chandra, Advocate,
informed the Court that efforts for
settlement of the matter between the parties
has failed and as such the matter be decided
on its merits.

11. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra,
learned counsel for the applicants in all the
petitions, Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2/first
informant/complainant in all the petitions,
Sri
Birendra
Pratap
Singh,
learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State and perused the records.

 Ref:
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 482 No. 4446 of 2020
and Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
No. 2818 of 2020

12. Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 4446 of 2020 has been filed
by Piyush Kaushal who is the husband of
Paru. The other connected petition being
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.
2818 of 2020 is on behalf of Surendra
Kumar the father-in-law and Smt. Usha the
mother-in-law of Paru. Challenge in both
the said matters relates to the same. Dispute
between the parties arose, subsequent to
which a First Information Report was
lodged by the opposite party no. 2/Smt.
Ramneek Taneja on 26.07.2019 as Case
Crime No. 140 of 2019, under Sections
498A, 377, 406, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, against
Piyush Kaushal the husband of Paru,
Surendra Kumar the father-in-law, Smt.
Usha the mother-in-law, Smt. Pooja Batla
the nand (sister-in-law) and Rajat Batla the
nandoi (brother-in-law) on the basis of an
application addressed to Superintendent of
Police (City), Ghaziabad alleging therein
that marriage of her daughter Paru was
fixed with Piyush Kaushal on 10.12.2017
and engagement was done on 03.10.2017.
In the engagement she had spent about Rs.
5 lakh as per her status. Smt. Usha and
Surendra Kumar the parents of Piyush
Kaushal got angry with her and told her
that her elder daughter Puja Batla and her
son-in-law Rajat Batla told them on
telephone that they are angry with them due
to giving of less gifts and articles in the
engagement and told them of breaking the
relationship, on which they specifically told
her to finish the relationship. On this she
asked them specifically as to what else they
want, on which they told her that they want
the marriage to be solemnized of minimum
of Rs.50 lakh on which for marriage was to
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be solemnized on 10.12.2017 in hotel
Ramada Plaza, a 5 star hotel, which was
booked and Rs. 50,000/- was given as
booking amount. They cancelled the
marriage stating that hotel is not good. On
pursuing them a lot and requesting them for
life and future of the girl, they agreed and
then 18.4.2018 was fixed for marriage,
after which looking to the future of the girl
a banquet hall in Panchkula, Haryana was
booked at a price of Rs.2500/- per plate for
300 people in which about Rs.12.50 lakh
was spent on the food. The other
expenditure of decoration etc. was around
Rs.10 lakh. In the marriage Piyush Kaushal
was given a diamond ring, chain and cash
money and his mother Smt. Usha Kaushal
was given a gold set, father was given a
ring and ginni, ring and ginni were also
given to both his sister Puja Batla and her
husband Rajat Batla and likewise the other
sister Mili Anand and her husband Amit
Anand were given gold ring and ginni and
the children was given Rs.21,000/- and
'baratis' were given cash money, in which
total Rs. 25 lakh was spent but still they
were not satisfied with it. Her daughter was
given jewellery, cloths and silver utensils in
which about Rs. 30 lakh was spent. Her
daughter Paru came to her house on
26.4.2018 with Piyush Kaushal wherein on
that date her son-in-law consumed liquor
and in her room despite her daughter
having her menses was forced to have
unnatural sex, which was told by her
daughter later on which she stated that she
did not tell it earlier to her and had pleaded
Piyush Kaushal not to do so but he did not
agree to it. Her daughter was in her house
wherein on contact with her mother-in-law,
father-in-law, nand and nandoi, they
demanded Rs.25 lakh for repair of house
and for purchase of house by boy on which
Paru was consoled and was sent back to her
matrimonial house on 15.1.2019, after
which Piyush Kaushal became agitated and
used to torture her. On 03.02.2019 Paru
came to her maternal house and is living
separately since then. The accused persons
have threatened them. Report be lodged
and action be taken.

13. The matter was investigated
and a charge sheet (undated) was submitted
against Piyush Kaushal/husband, Surendra
Kumar/father-in-law
and
Smt.
Usha/mother-in-law, under Sections 498A,
406, 506 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act. The other
accused named in the F.I.R. namely Smt.
Puja Batla and Rajat Batla were exonerated
and their names were mentioned in
Column-12 of the same in the column of
the accused persons not charge sheeted.
The investigating officer did not find any
evidence for offence under Section 377
I.P.C. and thus expunged the same. In the
investigation Smt. Ramneek Taneja/first
informant, Smt. Paru Taneja and Sahaj
Taneja were the alleged witnesses who
were interrogated.

14. The court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
8,
Ghaziabad vide order dated 19.12.2019
took cognizance upon the charge sheet and
summoned the said three accused persons
for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506
I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act.

15. The present two petitions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. have thus been filed
before
this
Court
challenging
the
proceedings of the said case with the
prayers as aforesaid by the respective
accused persons.

16.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submitted that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that falsity of the
2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
113
present case is itself evident from the fact
that 02 accused named in the F.I.R. namely
Smt. Pooja Batla/nand and Rajat Batla have
been exonerated by the police as during
investigation their implication was not
found in the matter. It is further submitted
that even the allegation against the
accused/Piyush Kaushal for the offence
under Section 377 I.P.C. was found to be
incorrect and as such he was exonerated
under the said section after investigation. It
is submitted that the First Information
Report has been lodged on 26.07.2019
which is after an inordinate delay of about
05 months. It is submitted that marriage of
the
applicant/Piyush
Kaushal
was
solemnized with Paru the daughter of the
opposite party no. 2 and the ceremony was
simple ceremony in an ideal manner
without any demand of dowry. It is
submitted that soon after marriage Paru
along with her spouse went to United
Kingdom (London) where they were
working. It is submitted that since Paru had
left her husband's place and was being
contacted
by
the
husband
through
WhatsApp chats and there being no
response from her demonstrated that she
does not want to live with him and thus
Piyush Kaushal filed a divorce case in
United Kingdom (London). It is further
submitted
that
the
applicant/Piyush
Kaushal is an educated and a well-qualified
person
and
because
of
some
misunderstanding between him and his
wife/Paru matrimonial dispute arose which
has taken the shape of criminal case in the
nature of F.I.R. with totally false and
baseless allegations. It is further submitted
that the allegations in the present matter are
general and omnibus in nature. It is
submitted that the applicant Surendra
Kumar is an old persons aged about 79
years whereas the other applicant Smt.
Usha is also an old persons aged about 69
years and they are suffering from various
diseases. Learned counsel has submitted
that the court taking cognizance upon the
charge sheet has not applied its judicial
mind and has taken cognizance and passed
the summoning order dated 19.12.2019 on
a printed proforma which has blanks in it
which were filled by pen. It is submitted
that the court concerned has not assigned
any reason for passing the said order. It is
submitted that the allegations against the
applicants of demanding dowry is false and
baseless. It is submitted that the order
summoning and the proceedings are bad in
the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed.
It is submitted that vagueness of the
allegations in the matter are apparent as
there are no specific dates of the alleged
incident mentioned in the same. There are
general and roving allegations against the
accused persons. It is submitted that as
such the proceedings against the applicants
be quashed.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party no. 2 and learned State
counsel vehemently opposed the petitions
and the prayer for quashing and submitted
that the applicants are named in the F.I.R.
and there are allegations against them. It is
submitted that in so far as the fact that the
parties are well educated is concerned, the
same is not disputed. Further both the
learned counsels for the State and the
opposite party no. 2 did not dispute the
relationship of the applicants with Paru. It
is submitted that the applicants are named
in the F.I.R. and a charge sheet has been
submitted against them on which the court
concerned has taken cognizance. It is
submitted that the present petitions be
dismissed.

 Ref: Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 18261 of 2022 and Criminal
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 36143 of
2022

18. These two (02) above petitions
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relate to
challenge of the proceedings initiated by
Smt. Paru Taneja, under Section 12 of The
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 for offences under
Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, Police
Station- Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
The applicants in Application U/S 482 No.
18261 of 2022 are Smt. Usha/mother-inlaw, Surindar Kaushal/father-in-law, Pooja
Batla/nand and Rajat Batla/nandoi of the
opposite party no. 2. The applicant in other
petition being Application U/S 482 No.
36143 of 2022 is Piyush Kaushal the
husband of the opposite party no. 2 Smt.
Paru Taneja.

19. The facts of the case are that
the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint
dated 12.11.2021 against 05 accused
persons namely Piyush Kaushal (husband),
Smt.
Usha
(mother-in-law),
Surendra
Kumar (father-in-law), Smt. Pooja Batla
(nand) and Rajat Batla (nandoi) with the
allegation that she was married to the
opposite party no. 1 Piyush Kaushal therein
on 18.4.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals
and marriage was performed in Panchkula,
Haryana. Approximately Rs. 50 lakh was
spent in the wedding and ornaments of
gold, silver and diamond along with costly
clothes, furnitures, household items and
cash money were given in it. She after
marriage and vidai, went to the house of the
accused/respondents and handed over the
entire jewellery to the respondents which
are in their possession till date. She started
discharging her marital obligations and
tried to fulfil their expectations. At the time
of marriage her husband was working in
London due to which the accused persons
used to taunt that dowry and gifts have not
been given as per their status. Her husband
went to London (U.K.) on 02.5.2018 but
she could not go with him as he was not
having Visa. Thereafter she went there on
22.05.2018. She started discharging her
marital
obligations.
The
accused/respondent used to assault her
regularly and taunt her for less dowry and
used to tell her to bring Rs. 25 lakh from
your parents for purchase of house else he
would murder her. The respondent is a
clever man. The respondent often used to
be intoxicated and when she asked reason
for coming at late hours, he used to assault
her. After about one week of her marriage
her mother-in-law, father-in-law, nand and
nandoi started assaulting her for less
dowry. She continued facing it but the
accused persons did not mend their ways.
From 02.02.2019 she and her husband are
living separately without any physical
relationship. Her husband in an intoxicated
condition used to assault her and torture her
physically and mentally and due to dispute
in the relations, her mother lodged a case as
Case Crime No. 0140/2019, State vs.
Piyush Kaushal and others, under Sections
498A, 377, 406, 506 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act.
The respondent is working in London in
Amazon Company at a good position and is
getting Rs. 10 lakh per month as salary and
is also having a lot of property. The prayers
in the complaint are thus under Section 18
of the Act for an order protecting her from
further domestic violence and return of
"Streedhan"
being
vehicle,
jewellery,
clothes etc., under Sections 17 and 19 for
providing safe place to live for which rent
of Rs. 15,000/- per month be ordered to be
given, under Section 20 of the Act for Rs.
5,00,000/- per month as her maintenance
and under Section 22 of the Act for one
time alimony of Rs. 1 crore. Further it was
2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
115
prayed that entire "Streedhan" be directed
to be returned to her.

20. On the said application notice
dated 12.11.2021 was issued by District
Probation
Officer,
Ghaziabad
to
the
accused/respondents.
District
Probation
Officer gave his report dated 12.11.2021 to
the court concerned. The proceedings of the
said case are thus also under challenge
before this Court.

21.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submitted that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that entire story in the
complaint is concocted, false and an
attempt to misuse the procedure of law. It is
submitted that the applicant/Pooja Batla
and Rajat Batla are permanent residents of
London (United Kingdom) and have no
concern with life and living of the
complainant and her husband. It is
submitted that the said persons do not share
the household with any of the other persons
and particularly with the complainant and
her husband. It is submitted while placing
para no. 26 and 27 of the affidavits in both
the
said
petitions,
that
the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 and her
husband/Piyush Kaushal lived for around
03 days only in the house of the applicant
no. 1/Smt. Usha and the applicant no.
2/Surindar Kaushal and thereafter, they
went for honeymoon from 22.4.2018 to
24.04.2018 and then to the house of the
parents of opposite party no. 2 from
26.4.2018 to 27.4.2018 and then both of
them returned back and stayed from
27.4.2018 to 01.5.2018 at the house of the
applicant no. 1 and the applicant no. 2. It is
submitted that the husband went to London
on 2.5.2018 and the opposite party no. 2
went to Delhi Airport to drop her husband
but did not return to the house of the
applicant no. 1 and the applicant no. 2 but
stayed back at the house of her parents at
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and while staying at
the said place, she gave her interview for
U.K. Visa on 14.5.2018 and then came
back to the house of the applicant no. 1 and
the applicant no. 2 and had again returned
back on 17.5.2018 at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad
to collect her visa and subsequently after
collecting her Visa on 22.5.2018, she left
for London to live with her husband on
24.05.2018. It is further submitted that
from 16.07.2018 to 24.7.2018 the opposite
party no. 2 and her husband went to Croatia
and
thereafter
from
26.09.2018
to
01.10.2018 they went to Rome, Italy and to
Venice,
Italy
from
12.10.2018
to
15.10.2018 and all the expenses were borne
solely by her husband. It is submitted that
the opposite party no. 2 left the house of
her husband at London without informing
him
on
18.12.2018
after
which
on
intervention of some family members they
convinced his wife to live with him again
who then returned back on 21.12.2018 and
started living with him in London.
Subsequently on 26.12.2018 the opposite
party no. 2 packed her all the articles and
forced her husband to drop her to airport as
she wanted to leave for India, but
surprisingly on 15.1.2019 she without
informing her husband, reached back to
home at London. It is submitted that the
marriage was a love marriage as the
opposite party no. 2 and Piyush Kaushal
used to study together in the year 2015 and
in the year 2016 and they decided to get
married and Roka Ceremony took place in
October 2017, after which some issues
arose between the family which were later
on resolved and then they married each
other. It is further submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 is a highly educated
woman and has worked at various high
posts, the details of the same have been
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given in para-42 of the affidavit which are
as under:-

"(a) 2012-2015 working with a
multi national firm Price Water House
Coopers in Dubai, UAE in a Senior
Executive Position.
 (b) 2016-2017 working with a top
e-commerce
company
Flipkart
in
Bangalore, India as Senior Manager
earning more than 25 lakh annually.

(c)
2018-2021
working
in
London, UK as Associate Director Ecommerce, Omnicom Media Group 90-100
Southwark Street, London SE1 OSW. (d)
2021- Current date working in Dubai as
Director E-Commerce Strategy, Omnicom
Media Group at Omnicom Media Group
Building, Dubai Media City, United Arab
Emirates-34404."

It is submitted that the present
complaint has been filed by the opposite
party no. 2 just in order to harass and
falsely implicate the applicants. Learned
counsel for the applicants further submitted
that the opposite party no. 2 earlier had
filed a divorce petition before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, Haryana
on 11.10.2021 which was dismissed on
22.11.2021 on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction.
Subsequently
the
husband/Piyush Kaushal filed a divorce
petition under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act on 23.11.2021 before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Derabassi,
Punjab and in the meantime, the present
complaint has been filed at a belated stage
on 12.11.2021 for an incident alleged to
have taken place in the year 2018-19. It is
further submitted that the allegations in the
complaint as narrated are general and
omnibus. It is submitted that although the
family members of the husband are made
accused/respondents in it but the version of
the complaint does not show that they were
sharing the same house-hold with the
complainant and her husband. It is
submitted that in the absence of specific
and
clear
allegations
against
the
respondent, the filing of the complaint is
clearly an act of malafide which would also
lack the necessary pleadings, averments
and allegations for the Court concerned to
proceed. It is thus submitted that the
present petition be allowed and the
proceedings of the said case be also
quashed.

22. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 and learned counsel for the
State opposed the prayers for quashing and
submitted the applicants are named in the
complaint and there are allegations against
them. The present petitions be thus
dismissed.

23. After having heard learned
counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the dispute in the
present matter has arisen after Piyush
Kaushal
entered
into
a
matrimonial
relationship with Paru. The relationship
became sour and as such an F.I.R. was
lodged
initially
on
26.7.2019
under
Sections 498A, 377, 406, 506 I.P.C. and 3⁄4
D.P. Act against 05 accused persons. The
investigation in the matter concluded and
out of 05 named accused persons in the
F.I.R. implication of two accused persons
namely Smt. Pooja Batla and Rajat Batla
was found to be false and they were not
charge sheeted and further the allegations
with regard to Section 377 I.P.C. against
the accused/Piyush Kaushal was also found
to be false and thus he was exonerated for
the same. Charge sheet was then submitted
against three accused persons namely
Piyush Kaushal (husband), Smt. Usha
(mother-in-law)
and
Surendra
Kumar
(father-in-law), under Sections 498A, 406,
2 All. Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
117
506 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act. The court
concerned vide its order dated 19.12.2019
took cognizance upon the same and
summoned the accused persons therein.

24.
Aspects
with
regard
to
summoning order is being taken up first.
Perusal of the order dated 19.12.2019
taking cognizance and summoning the
accused persons is an order passed on a
printed proforma which has blanks in it
which were filled with ink. There is no
reason assigned in the said order by the
court concerned which would justify
passing the order summoning the accused
persons. The summoning order is a totally
non-speaking order. The Apex Court in the
cases of M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors : (1998) 5
SCC 749, Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. C.B.I. :
(2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman vs.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others :
(2015) 12 SCC 420, Krishna Lal Chawla and
others vs. State of U.P. and another : (2015)
12 SCC 420, Inox Air Products Limited Now
Known As Inox Air Products Private
Limited vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 209, Lalankumar
Singh and Others vs. State of Maharashtra:
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383, Sachin Garg
Vs. State of U.P. and Another : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 82 and JM Laboratories and
Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 208 has held
that an order summoning has to be speaking
order and reasons have to be assigned by the
court concerned for summoning an accused
since the same is having serious consequences.
Reference herein is made to paragraph nos. 33
to 40 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of INOX AIR (Supra). The same reads as
under:-

"33. It could be seen from the
aforesaid order that except recording the
submissions of the complainant, no reasons
are recorded for issuing the process against
the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be
relevant
to
refer
to
the
following
observations of this Court in the case of
Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra):

"28. Summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of
the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held
that summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. It has been held
that the order of the Magistrate summoning
the accused must reflect that he has applied
his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. This Court held that the
Magistrate is required to examine the
nature of allegations made in the complaint
and
the
evidence,
both
oral
and
documentary in support thereof and as to
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether that would be sufficient for
proceeding against the accused. It has been
held that the Magistrate is not a silent
spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning
the accused.

36. The said law would be
consistently following by this Court in a
catena of judgments including in the cases
of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman v.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others and
Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another.

37. Recently, a Bench of this
Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a
Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh
(supra), has observed thus:

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, which
reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and it
must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction."

25. Further in the case of JM
Laboratories (Supra) it has been held by
the Apex Court as under:

"8. In the judgment and order of
even date in criminal appeal arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX
Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX
Air Products Private Limited v. The State
of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed
thus:

"33.