# Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-15
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No.10036 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-kushwaha-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50973
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202 & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A & 323 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 &
4 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
impugned summoning order - marriage was
solemnized
between
applicant
no.
1
and
respondent no. 2 in 2019 - a complaint was filed
by the wife in 2021 - levelling allegations of
torture and cruelty for demands of dowry of a
four-wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh in cash - she also
alleged about repeated physical abuse, threats,
and eventual expulsion from her matrimonial
home - she also claimed her husband denied
paternity of their child and threatened remarriage
- Statement u/section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were
recorded - issued summons by the Learned
Magistrate against the applicants - instant
application - plea taken that, the summoning
order was based on vague and generalized
allegations, amounting to false and malicious
prosecution, with no specific role or incriminating
material against them - especially against
applicant no. 4, who lives separately and was
wrongly implicated - The Court finds that the
allegations against applicant no. 4 (sister-in-law),
were vague, general, and unsupported by specific
instances, especially since she was employed as a
nurse in Noida and was proven to be at her
workplace on the date of the alleged incident -
Her
implication
appeared
improbable
and
unjustified, amounting to over-implication and
abuse of judicial process - hence, Court exercised
its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the summoning order against respondent
no. 4 however, proceedings to be continue
against the remaining applicants - held that,
inherent powers should be exercised sparingly
and only to prevent miscarriage of justice or
abuse of process, which was not evident in this
case - consequently, the application is partly
allowed - directions issued accordingly. (Para -
15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ordered to be proceeded ex-parte and order
dated 2.11.2022 whereby the complainant
was permitted to adduce her evidence exparte,this Court is of the view, in the
interest of justice, that it would be befitting
to modify orders dated 22.8.2022 and
2.11.2022 to the extent that the opportunity
may be given to the present applicants for
filing their detailed objection and adduce the
evidence in proceeding under Section 12 of
D.V. Act. As such, in exercise of inherent
power, in order to secure the ends of justice,
the orders dated 22.8.2022 and 2.11.2022 are
hereby modified to the extent that the present
applicants are at liberty to file detailed
objection and adduce evidence, if any, before
the trial court in original proceeding under
Section 12 of D.V. Act within a period of
three weeks from today and the same shall be
considered and decided in accordance with
law after giving due opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned within statutory period
as enunciated under Section 12 (5) of D.V.
Act.

----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 902
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 482. No.10036 of 2022

Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Raj Kumar Kesari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.,Sri Prashant Dwivedi
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 202 & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A & 323 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 &
4 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
impugned summoning order - marriage was
solemnized
between
applicant
no.
1
and
respondent no. 2 in 2019 - a complaint was filed
by the wife in 2021 - levelling allegations of
torture and cruelty for demands of dowry of a
four-wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh in cash - she also
alleged about repeated physical abuse, threats,
and eventual expulsion from her matrimonial
home - she also claimed her husband denied
paternity of their child and threatened remarriage
- Statement u/section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were
recorded - issued summons by the Learned
Magistrate against the applicants - instant
application - plea taken that, the summoning
order was based on vague and generalized
allegations, amounting to false and malicious
prosecution, with no specific role or incriminating
material against them - especially against
applicant no. 4, who lives separately and was
wrongly implicated - The Court finds that the
allegations against applicant no. 4 (sister-in-law),
were vague, general, and unsupported by specific
instances, especially since she was employed as a
nurse in Noida and was proven to be at her
workplace on the date of the alleged incident -
Her
implication
appeared
improbable
and
unjustified, amounting to over-implication and
abuse of judicial process - hence, Court exercised
its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the summoning order against respondent
no. 4 however, proceedings to be continue
against the remaining applicants - held that,
inherent powers should be exercised sparingly
and only to prevent miscarriage of justice or
abuse of process, which was not evident in this
case - consequently, the application is partly
allowed - directions issued accordingly. (Para -
15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. of U.P., (2012)10 SCC
471

2. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs St. of Bihar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599,
1 All. Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
903
3. Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472,

4. Preeti Gupta & anr. Vs St. of Jharkhand &
anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667.

5. Ramesh Vs St. of T.N. reported in (2005) SCC
(Crl.) 735.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Prashant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 as well as learned
AGA for the State and perused the record
on board.

2. The applicants have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
quash the impugned summoning order
dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Civil
Judge (Jr. Division), Kaushambi in
Complaint Case No. 368 of 2021 (Ritu
Kumari Vs. Virendra & Ors.) under
Sections- 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act (in brevity D.P.
Act) Police Station- Karari, District-
Kaushambi.1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar
Kesari, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Prashant Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 as well as learned
AGA for the State and perused the record
on board.

3. Facts culled out from the
avertments as made in the instant
application supported by an affidavit are
that the respondent no.2 (wife of the
applicant no.1) has moved a complaint
dated 24.3.2021 against her husband,
mother-in-law, father-in-law and two
sisters-in-law levelling allegation of torture
and cruelty for demand of dowry with an
averment
that
the
marriage
of
the
complainant was solemnized on 9.3.2019
with applicant no.1 in accordance with the
hindu rites and rituals; that as per their
capacity,
family
members
of
the
complainant have given dowry and sent her
with her-in-laws; that when she reached at
matrimonial home she has been harassed
for demand of four wheeler; that when she
reached her maternal home, she narrated
her ordeals qua the demand of four wheeler
and Rs. 1 lakh cash, however, her family
members have sent her back to the in-laws
house by giving assurance that problem
will be shorted out in some days; that
family members of the complainant came
at the residence of her in-laws and shown
their inability to fulfill the demand of four
wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh; that she has been
beaten up many times and sent to her
maternal house; that she has been subjected
to torture and cruel behavior of her in-laws,
however, in the meantime, she gave birth to
a boy child on 28.9.2020; that for demand
of dowry, she has been kicked out on
16.01.2021 by her in-laws from the house;
that husband of the complainant has stated
that the child is not born from his loin,
therefore, he will not keep the complainant
with him and he will solemnized second
marriage; that the complainant has already
moved a representation/application to the
Police
Station
concerned
and
the
Superintendent of
Police,
Kaushambi,
however, till date no action has been taken,
therefore, accused/respondents may be
summoned and punished.

4. Learned Magistrate, after going
through the contents of the complaint and
the statement of the complainant under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of
witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. has issued processed
against the present applicants viz. husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law and one sisterin-law,
exculpating
Rubi
Kushwaha
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(another sister-in-law), under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
vide its order impugned dated 14.9.2021.

5. Assailing the summoning order
under challenge, learned counsel for the
applicants (accused) has submitted that
false and malicious prosecution has been
made against the present applicants without
any incriminating material on record and
all the family members of the husband has
illegally been roped in the criminal
proceedings
based
on
the
general
allegations and no specific instance has
been given by the complainant attributing
the accused concerned for making out a
case of cognizable offence. It is further
submitted that Priya Kushwaha (applicant
no.4) has illegally been implicated being a
sister-in-law who is residing in Noida and
doing private job of Nurse, therefore, no
case is made out against her. However,
another
sister-in-law
namely
Rubi
Kushwaha, who was arrayed as an accused
no. 5 in the complaint, has rightly been
exempted from summoning. It is further
submitted that no cognizable offence is
made out against the present applicants. In
support of his submissions learned counsel
for the applicants has placed reliance on the
cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of
U.P., (2012)10 SCC 471 and the Case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State
of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2
has
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions as raised by learned counsel
for the applicants and contended that on the
face of record, prima facie, the complicity
of the present applicants in the commission
of cognizable offence as narrated in the
complaint cannot be ruled out. Clear cut
allegation of torture and cruelty for demand
of dowry has been levelled against all the
accused-applicants
who
harassed
the
complainant during the period while she
was residing in her matrimonial house.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2
has emphasized questionable conducted of
the husband (applicant no.1) who has
tortured and harassed the complainant by
desoning her child on the pretext that child
was not born from his loin. The husband
has through out threatened the complainant
to desert her and solemnize second. It is
further contended that decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the applicants are
distinguishable and are not fully applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. It is further contended that
innocence of the present applicants as is
being tried to put forward before this Court
by the learned counsel for the applicants is
a matter of trial and same cannot be
inferred at this juncture in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. It is next contended that the instant
application is liable to be dismissed being
misconceived and devoid of merits.

7. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of the record, it
is manifested that there is admitted
relationship between the applicant no.1 and
respondent
no.2
(complainant)
being
husband and wife. Showing her plights
suffered after the marriage at the in-laws
house,
respondent
no.2 has
filed
a
complaint levelling allegation of torture
and cruelty for demand of dowry against all
the family members of her husband.
Perusal of the complaint reveals that
general allegations have been made against
the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law
and two sisters-in-law by referring their
names in a very casual manner. They have
been blamed for harassing the complainant
1 All. Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
905
for demand of four wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh
cash in the nature of dowry. It is apposite to
mention that in the complaint both sistersin-law, namely Priya Kushawaha and Rubi
Kushwaha have been inculpated as accused
nos.4 and 5. However, while issuing
process,
Rubi
Kushwaha
has
been
exculpated on the ground that she is
married and her name has not been taken
by the complainant in her statement made
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Learned court
below has observed that complainant has
taken the names of her husband, mother-inlaw, father-in-law and one of the sister-inlaw, namely Priya Kushwaha, except the
name of another sister-in-law namely Rubi
Kushwaha, with an allegation that they all
harassed her for demand of dowry.

8. Shukrulal (P.W.-1), father of the
complainant, has also levelled general
allegation of cruelty and torture for demand
of dowry with an averment that his
daughter has through out being harassed by
her in-laws for demand of four wheeler and
Rs. 1 lakh cash. She along with her baby in
her lapse has been thrown out from in-laws
house. Shivbabu (P.W.-2), brother-in-law
of the father of the complainant, has
supported the case of the complaint and he
has levelled similar allegation as well.
Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), vide
order impugned dated 14.9.2021, has
issued
process
against
the
present
applicants under Sections- 498-A, 323 IPC
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, after
considering the statements recorded under
Sections 200 Cr.P.C and 202 Cr.P.C.

9. Considering misuse of provisions
relating to the matrimonial discord and
significant increasement of the matrimonial
litigation, Hon'ble Supreme Court at
several occasions has tried to restrict the
law relating to the matrimonial dispute on
the ground of omnibus allegations against
in-laws. In the matter of Rajesh Sharma
and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
expressed
his
concerned qua misuse of provisions as
enunciated under Section 498-A IPC with
an observation that Section 498-A IPC was
inserted in the statute with the laudable
object of punishing cruelty at the hands of
husband or his relatives against a wife
particularly when such cruelty had potential
to result in suicide or murder of a woman
as mentioned in the statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The
expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A IPC
covers conduct which may drive the
woman to commit suicide or cause grave
injury (mental or physical) or danger to life
or harassment with a view to coerce her to
meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of cases
continue to be filed under already referred
to some of the statistics from the Crime
Records Bureau. Hon'ble Apex Court
further observed that this Court had earlier
noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues. Many of such
complaints are not bona fide. At the time of
filing of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times
such complaints lead to uncalled for
harassment not only to the accused but also
to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may
ruin the chances of settlement.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Preeti Gupta and Another
vs. State of Jharkhand and Another,
(2010) 7 SCC 667 has tried to highlight the
tendency in the present scenario to
implicate
the
husband
and
all
his
immediate
relatives
in
matrimonial
litigation, therefore, it is expected that
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while
dealing
such
matters,
learned
members of the Bar must discharged their
duties to the best of their ability to ensure
that social fabric, peace and tranquility of
the society remains intact. It has been
observed that it is matter of common
experience that most of the complaints
under Section 498-A IPC are filed on
'spur
of
the
moment'
over
the
matrimonial bickering.

11.

Considering
the
several
judgments of its Court in the matter of
Khakashan
Kausar
(supra),
Hon'ble
Supreme Court has shown his concerned
over misuse of the provisions enunciated
under Section 498-A IPC as well. The
relevant paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the
aforesaid judgment is quoted herein
below:

"18.
The
above-mentioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this
court
has
at
numerous
instances
expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-A IPC and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by
way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial dispute, if
left unchecked would result in misuse of
the process of law. Therefore, this court
by way of its judgments has warned the
courts
from
proceeding
against
the
relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against
them.

19. Coming to the facts of this
case, upon a perusal of the contents of the
FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the
Appellants. The complainant alleged that
'all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened
her
of
terminating
her
pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of
the Appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused
in
furtherance
of
the
offence.
The
allegations are therefore general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have
been made out on account of small
skirmishes. .......................".

12. In the matter Geeta Mehrotra
(supra), as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicants, brother-in-law
and sister-in-law of the complainant has
approached before Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the ground that they have been
illegally inculpated in the alleged offence
on the basis of bald allegations and their
names have been surfaced casually
without attributing any incident. While
deciding the matter, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the case of Ramesh
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 in para no. 15 to
17 of it's judgment, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that bald
allegation made against the sister-in-law
by the complainant appeared to suggest
anxiety of the informant to rope in as
many as of the husband's relatives as
possible. It has also been observed that
neither FIR nor charge-sheet furnished
legal basis for the Magistrate to take
cognizance
of
the
offences
alleged
against the applicants. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has quashed the proceedings against
the married sister-in-law who undisputedly
1 All. Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
907
not
living with
the
family
of
the
complainant's husband.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
deciding the case of Geeta Mehrotra
(Supra) has quashed the entire criminal
proceeding initiated against the brother-inlaw and sister-in-law on the ground that
casual omnibus allegations have been
made against the relatives of the husband.
The relevant paragraph Nos. 19,20,23 and
24 is quoted here-under:

"19. Coming to the facts of this
case, when the contents of the FIR is
perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations
against
Kumari
Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except
casual reference of their names who have
been included in the FIR but mere casual
reference of the names of the family
members
in
a
matrimonial
dispute
without allegation of active involvement
in the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the
fact borne out of experience that there is
a tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after
the wedding.

20. It would be relevant at this
stage to take note of an apt observation
of this Court recorded in the matter of
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court
had held that the High Court should have
quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused
in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults
and
terminate
the
disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their cases in different
courts." The view taken by the judges in
this matter was that the courts would not
encourage such disputes.

23. ................, yet in the instant
matter the factual position remains that the
complaint as it stands lacks ingredients
constituting the offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
against the appellants who are sister and
brother of the complainant's husband and
their involvement in the whole incident
appears only by way of a casual inclusion
of their names. Hence, it cannot be
overlooked that it would be total abuse of
the process of law if we were to remand the
matter to the High Court to consider
whether there were still any material to
hold that the trial should proceed against
them in spite of absence of prima facie
material constituting the offence alleged
against them.
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24.
However,
we
deem
it
appropriate to add by way of caution that
we may not be misunderstood so as to infer
that even if there are allegation of overt act
indicating the complicity of the members
of the family named in the FIR in a given
case, cognizance would be unjustified but
what
we
wish
to
emphasize
by
highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands
does not disclose specific allegation
against accused more so against the coaccused specially in a matter arising out
of matrimonial bickering, it would be
clear abuse of the legal and judicial
process to mechanically send the named
accused in the FIR to undergo the trial
unless of course the FIR discloses
specific
allegations
which
would
persuade the court to take cognisance of
the offence alleged against the relatives
of the main accused who are prima facie
not found to have indulged in physical
and mental torture of the complainantwife. It is the well settled principle laid
down in cases too numerous to mention,
that if the FIR did not disclose the
commission of an offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the
proceedings preventing the abuse of the
process of law. Simultaneously, the
courts are expected to adopt a cautious
approach
in
matters
of
quashing
specially in cases of matrimonial dispute
whether
the FIR
in
fact
discloses
commission of an offence by the relatives
of the principal accused or the FIR prima
facie discloses a case of over-implication
by involving the entire family of the
accused
at
the
instance
of
the
complainant, who is out to settle her
scores arising out of the teething problem
or skirmish of domestic bickering while
settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding.

14. Considering the ratio decided by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as discussed
above, in the given circumstances, I am of
the considered view that learned Magistrate
has hurriedly issued the process against all
the family members of the husband without
properly
scrutinizing
the
gravity
of
omnibus allegations and without recording
his
satisfaction
qua
occurrence
of
cognizable offence against all of them
particularly sister of the husband (applicant
No.4).

15. Perusal of the complaint evince
the omnibus allegations made against all
the applicants herein by referring their
names in a casual manner with an
allegation of demanding four wheeler and
Rs.1 lakh cash in the nature of dowry.
However, in her statement recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., she has simply stated
that she has been harassed for demand of
dowry. No specific allegation has been
made for demand of four wheeler and case
amounting Rs.1 lakh. She has made
specific allegation against her husband that
he has threatened the complainant to
solemnize second marriage. P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 in their statements under Section
202 Cr.P.C. have supported the case of the
complainant
wherein
complainant
has
allegdly been harassed for demand of four
wheeler and cash amounting Rs. 1 lakh.
Both the witnesses have made general
allegation against all family members of
the husband (applicants herein) including
Rubi Kushwaha (another sister-in-law)
taking their names casually without citing
any particular instance attributing to their
overt act in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. Rubi
Kushwaha has been exempted in the
summoning order on the ground that her
name has not specifically been taken by the
1 All. Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909
complainant in her statement under Section
200 Cr.P.C.

16. Applicant no.4 (sister of husband)
is doing her job being Nurse in Noida and
hardly resides with her family members
including respondent no.2. In paragraph
no.12 of the affidavit filed in support of
the instant application, it has clearly been
mentioned that applicant no.4 (Priya
Kushwaha), who is sister-in-law of the
complainant, is a Nurse by profession and
she was continuously discharging her
duties at J.P. Hospital, Noida since
14.09.2020. In support of this averments,
relevant documents relating to presence
of the applicant no.4 at her work place
being a Nurse have been filed, obtained
from J.P. Hospital. Respondent no.2 has
made a evasive denial in paragraph no.8
of the counter affidavit with simple
averments of 'not admitted'. Unmarried
status
of
applicant
no.4
and
her
professional carrier being a Nurse has not
been denied in the counter affidavit.
Copy of the nursing certificate dated
14.12.2018 and copy of the attendance
report showing presence of the applicant
no.4 in the hospital have collectively
being filed as annexure no.5 to the
affidavit filed in support of the instant
application. Registration certificate dated
14.12.2018
of
diploma
in
General
Nursing and Midwifery, reveals that she
had conducted three years training course
since September, 2015 to September,
2018. The official concerned of the J.P.
Hospital has issued a certificate dated
5.4.2022 to the effect that she was
continuously working in the hospital
since September 14, 2020. In paragraph
no.8 of the complaint dated 24.3.2021
allegation has been levelled against all
the
family
members
including
the
applicant no.4 that on 16.1.2021, they had
thrashed the respondent no.2 and kicked
her out from the matrimonial house.
Photostat copy of the attendance report
(Page Nos. 50 and 51 of the paper book)
reveals that on the alleged incident dated
16.1.2021 she was present at her work
place i.e. J.P. Hospital, Noida. In light of
the certificate dated April 5, 2022 issued by
the authority concerned by the J.P. Hospital
and the attendance report, the complicity of
the applicant No.4 in the commission of
crime allegedly took place on 16.1.2022
appears to be improbale. Even otherwise, it
would be difficult to believe for a prudent
person that a professional lady working in a
hospital was involved in harassing the
respondent no.2 for demand of four
wheeler and cash amounting Rs. 1 lakh in
nature of dowry. Applicant no. 4 has been
inculpated in a general way along with
other family members.

17. Complaint filed by respondent
no.2 and the statements made under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie,
reveals that name of the applicant no.4 has
casually been referred along with other coaccused in a matter arising out of
matrimonial bickering sans citing any
specific
instance
attributing
to
her.
Complaint, prima facie, discloses a case of
over implication by involving the entire
family of the husband at the instance of the
complainant. Forcing the applicant no.4
(sister-in-law) mechanically to face trial
would not be befitting in the eyes of law
and would amount a clear abuse of legal
and judicial process inasmuch in the
complaint as it stands, in my opinion, no
cognizable offence is made out against
applicant no.4 under Sections- 498-A, 323
IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. She has
been named casually based on omnibus
allegations without showing her active
involvement in the matter to make out a
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of cognizable offence under the
sections, in which process has been issued
by the court competent against her.

18. In this conspectus, as above, I am
of the considered opinion, that justifiable
ground is made to allow the instant
application in part in exercise of inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent
the abuse of process of court and to secure
the ends of justice, so far as it relates to the
applicant no.4 (sister-in-law).

19. Accordingly, instant application is
partly allowed and impugned summoning
order dated 14.9.2021 is hereby quashed, in
part, so far as it relates to the applicant no.4
Priya Kushwaha (sister-in-law).

20. So far as remaining applicants are
concerned, they will face trial in pursuance
of the order impugned dated 14.9.2021.

21. It is made clear that any
observations made by the Court, while
deciding the instant application in the order
of the date, shall not affect the merits of the
case which will be decided on its own
merits against the remaining applicants.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 910
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10364 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Anil Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Ankit Tripathi. Bhupendra Singh Bisht

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 120-B - Scheduled Caste
and
Scheduled
Tribe
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2) (v) -
Opposite party no.2 lodged FIR against four
persons, including applicant no.1 (excluding
applicant no.2), alleging that her daughter killed
by accused by hanging her from tree while she
& anr. girl returning from fields - After
investigation, charge sheet filed against coaccused persons, noting that investigation was
continuing - Subsequently, second charge sheet
submitted against same co-accused, stating that
involvement of other co-accused could not be
established during investigation - By impugned
order, trial court took cognizance of offences
under aforesaid Sections against applicants
along with co-accused named in charge sheet -
St.ments of other girl who accompanied
deceased at time of incident under Sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. implicating applicants ignored
by Investigating Officer - Court held that plea of
false implication of applicant's family cannot be
examined at this stage and shall be decided by
trial court after giving opportunity to parties to
lead their evidence. (Para 4, 5, 6, 15)

Application Dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nahar Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 5 SCC 295
: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 332, (Paras 29, 30)

2. Dharam Pal Vs St. of Har., (2014) 3 SCC 306,
(Paras 34, 35)

3. C.B.I. Vs Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC
379

4. Manik B Vs Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & ors. SLP
(Crl.) No. 2924 of 2023 decided on 07.08.2023,
(Paras 6 to 8)

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Awasthi, the
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri