# Virendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1916
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41554 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53382
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Law
-
Bhartiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding
to
Section
482
Cr.P.C.)
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 & 4 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 323 & 307 - Matrimonial dispute -
Quashing of proceedings - Allegations
against husband's family members -
General and omnibus allegations
-
Vague accusation of dowry demand and
cruelty
without
specific
acts
-
Contradictions between FIR and witness
statements - No injury or medical
corroboration for attempt to murder
charge
-
Frequent
change
of
Investigating Officers and procedural
irregularities
-
Held,
criminal
prosecution of father-in-law, mother-inlaw, and married sister-in-law on such
omnibus allegations amounts to abuse
of process - Case falls under categories
(1), (5) and (7) of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan
Lal-
Proceedings
quashed.
(Paras 24, 25, 26, 34, 45, 48, 50 and 61)

HELD:

The Apex Court in a plethora of judgements has
underscored that in matrimonial disputes,
criminal proceedings against the husband's
relatives can be quashed where the allegations
are vague, omnibus, or lacking in specificity.
This judicial stance seeks to prevent the misuse
of penal provisions particularly Section 498A
IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or
his relatives. However, the Court has mandated
that allegations against each co-accused must
be clear, detailed, and supported by cogent
facts.
Generic
accusations
cannot
sustain
criminal liability. (para 24)

The Apex Court, in numerous judgements has
considered the ingredients of Section 307 IPC,
which prescribes punishment for acts done with
the intention or knowledge that, if death had
occurred, the offence would amount to murder.
(Para 26)

Upon examining the facts of the present case, it
is evident that there are inconsistencies and
deviations in the version stated in the FIR, and
lacking overall clarity. The allegations levelled
against the husband's family members, i.e., the
father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law,
appear to be unsubstantiated. This Court is of
the considered view that, at most, it is the
husband who may be held accountable for the
alleged offences. However, the involvement of
his family members does not seem to be
supported by credible evidence. It appears that
they have been unnecessarily implicated in this
matter with the apparent intent to exert
pressure on the husband, who is currently
residing outside India as a Canadian citizen.
(Para 45)

In the present case, it appears to be a case of
over-implication, wherein the entire family of
the accused has been unnecessarily roped in,
possibly with the intention of settling personal
scores or due to other ulterior motives. Keeping
in view the observations made by the Supreme
Court in similar matters, it becomes evident that
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1917
the present case lacks substance in terms of
specific and credible allegations. (Para 48)

Furthermore, the informant has not mentioned
any particular instance of harassment with
clarity. The statements recorded under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also show notable
discrepancies when compared with the FIR.
These
inconsistencies
further
weaken
the
prosecution's case and indicate that the
allegations may not be trustworthy or credible.
(Para 50)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,834 of 108,543. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39834 for what follows._

1916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14-It
is
made
clear
that
the
observations contained in the instant order
are confined to the issue of bail only and
shall not be construed to have any
expression on the merit of the case.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1916
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41554 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Imran Ullah, Vineet Vikram, G.A. , Ishir
Sripat

Criminal
Law
-
Bhartiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding
to
Section
482
Cr.P.C.)
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 & 4 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 323 & 307 - Matrimonial dispute -
Quashing of proceedings - Allegations
against husband's family members -
General and omnibus allegations
-
Vague accusation of dowry demand and
cruelty
without
specific
acts
-
Contradictions between FIR and witness
statements - No injury or medical
corroboration for attempt to murder
charge
-
Frequent
change
of
Investigating Officers and procedural
irregularities
-
Held,
criminal
prosecution of father-in-law, mother-inlaw, and married sister-in-law on such
omnibus allegations amounts to abuse
of process - Case falls under categories
(1), (5) and (7) of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan
Lal-
Proceedings
quashed.
(Paras 24, 25, 26, 34, 45, 48, 50 and 61)

HELD:

The Apex Court in a plethora of judgements has
underscored that in matrimonial disputes,
criminal proceedings against the husband's
relatives can be quashed where the allegations
are vague, omnibus, or lacking in specificity.
This judicial stance seeks to prevent the misuse
of penal provisions particularly Section 498A
IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or
his relatives. However, the Court has mandated
that allegations against each co-accused must
be clear, detailed, and supported by cogent
facts.
Generic
accusations
cannot
sustain
criminal liability. (para 24)

The Apex Court, in numerous judgements has
considered the ingredients of Section 307 IPC,
which prescribes punishment for acts done with
the intention or knowledge that, if death had
occurred, the offence would amount to murder.
(Para 26)

Upon examining the facts of the present case, it
is evident that there are inconsistencies and
deviations in the version stated in the FIR, and
lacking overall clarity. The allegations levelled
against the husband's family members, i.e., the
father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law,
appear to be unsubstantiated. This Court is of
the considered view that, at most, it is the
husband who may be held accountable for the
alleged offences. However, the involvement of
his family members does not seem to be
supported by credible evidence. It appears that
they have been unnecessarily implicated in this
matter with the apparent intent to exert
pressure on the husband, who is currently
residing outside India as a Canadian citizen.
(Para 45)

In the present case, it appears to be a case of
over-implication, wherein the entire family of
the accused has been unnecessarily roped in,
possibly with the intention of settling personal
scores or due to other ulterior motives. Keeping
in view the observations made by the Supreme
Court in similar matters, it becomes evident that
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1917
the present case lacks substance in terms of
specific and credible allegations. (Para 48)

Furthermore, the informant has not mentioned
any particular instance of harassment with
clarity. The statements recorded under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also show notable
discrepancies when compared with the FIR.
These
inconsistencies
further
weaken
the
prosecution's case and indicate that the
allegations may not be trustworthy or credible.
(Para 50)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Pepsi
Foods
Ltd.
Vs
Special
Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749

2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBT, (2015) 4 SCC 609

3. State of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

4. Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs U.O.I., (2005) 6 SCC 281

5.Preeti Gupta Vs St. of Jh., (2010) 7 SCC 667

6. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741

7. Smt. Ruchi Tiwari Vs St. of U.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine All 1026

8. Kailash Chandra Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2014) 16 SCC 551

9. Pritam Ashok Sadafule Vs St. of Mah. & ors.,
(2015) 11 SCC 769

10. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs St. of Tel., (2017)
9 SCC 413

11. Kartik Chand Majee Vs St. of Jh. & ors.,
(2018) 13 SCC 747

12. Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P., (2018)
10 SCC 472

13. K. Subbarao & ors. Vs St. of Tel., (2018) 14
SCC 452
14. Rashmi Chopra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019)
15 SCC 357

15. Seenivasan Vs St., (2019) 8 SCC 642

16. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bih., (2022) 6
SCC 599

17. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and
another Vs U.O.I., Ministry of Law and Justice &
ors., (2018) 10 SCC 443

18. Mohd. Akram Siddqui Vs St. of Bih. & anr.,
(2019) 13 SCC 350

19. Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs The St. of Bih. &
ors., 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454

20. Rajeev Kaurav Vs Balasahab & ors., 2020 0
Supreme (SC) 143

21. Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs Aluri Thirupathi
Rao & ors., (SLP(CRL) No. 9243 of 2024)

22. Priyanka Jaiswal Vs St. of Jh. & ors., 2024
SCC Online SC 685 : Criminal Appeal No. 2344
of 2024 @ SLP(CRL) No. 10668 of 2022)

23. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs St. of
Mah. & ors., Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021

24. CBI Vs Aryan Singh, Criminal Appeal Nos.
1025-1026 of 2023 @ SLP (CRL) Nos. 1279412795 of 2022

25. Rajendra Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2015) 6 SCC
477

26. Vipin Jaiswal Vs St. of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC
684

27. Appasaheb Vs St. of Mah., (2007) 9 SCC 721

28. Rajesh Aggarwal & anr. Vs St. NCT of Delhi
& anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1828

29. Sanjeet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Application U/s 482 No. 28622 of 2023

30. Satbir Singh Vs St. of Har., (2021) 6 SCC 1

31. Rajinder Singh Vs. St. of Pun., (2015) 6 SCC 477
1918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32. St. of Mah. Vs Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434

33. Kuldip Singh Vs St. of Pun., 1989 Supp (2)
SCC 36

34. R. Prakash Vs St. of Kar., (2004) 9 SCC 27

35. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 SC 866

36. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122

37. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs St. of Uttaranchal,
(2007) 12 SCC 1

38. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2012) 10 SCC
303

39. Abhishek Vs St. of M.P., (2023) 16 SCC 666

40. Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2021 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019)

41. Mahmood Ali Vs St. of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC
488

42. Kamal & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr.,
Judgement Date: 16.04.2025 : Arising out of
SLP (Crl) No. 9167/ 2024 : 2025 INSC 504

43. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & ors. Vs St. of Tel.
& anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682

44. G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693

45. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & anr., (2014) 8
SCC 273

46. Preeti Gupta & anr. Vs St. of Jh. & anr.,
(2010) 7 SCC 667

47. K. Subba Rao Vs The St. of Tel., (2018) 14
SCC 452

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The applicants have preferred
instant application under Section 528
BNSS1 challenging order dated 29.10.2024
along with charge sheet dated 19.08.2024
and
the
entire
proceeding
of
Case
No.14793 of 20242, arising out of Case
Crime No.191 of 2024, Police Station-
Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur, up to the
extent of summoning the applicant no.1
under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act and applicant nos. 2
and 3 under Sections 498-A, 323, 307
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hapur.

2. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar,
appears on behalf of the applicants, Mr.
Imran Ullah, Mr. Vineet Vikram and Mr.
Ishir Sripat, learned counsels have put in
appearance for opposite party no.2 and Mr.
Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the
State. With the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the case is being
heard and decided finally without calling
counter affidavit.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants placed brief facts of the case,
that on the basis of an order passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur on an
application moved before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a
First Information Report3 was lodged on
16.03.2024 at 06:49 hrs. against the fatherin-law Virendra Singh (applicant no. 1),
mother-in-law Meenakshi Singh (applicant
no. 2), Nanad Swati Singh (applicant no. 3)
and Arjun Singh husband of the informant,
stating that the informant is a law abiding
and trustworthy woman, presently residing
in Hapur and her permanent address is of
Madhya Pradesh. She has detailed about
the accused persons named in the FIR
showing
her
relation
with
them.
Informant's version in the FIR is that her
marriage was solemnized with accused
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1919
Arjun Singh on 25.06.2023 in Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the marriage
was
registered
before
the
Registrar,
Marriages, Sadar-1, Hapur on 27.06.2023
through an application no. 202314100302.
Said marriage was mediated by Sri Umesh
Singh Chauhan +91-8770894052, resident
of Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, wherein
informant's husband Arjun Singh, aged
about 34 years, was stated to be the resident
of Toronto, Canada (425-221 Balliol Street,
M4S1C8, Toronto) and it was also
informed that Arjun Singh is the citizen of
Canada
and
previously
he
had not
performed any marriage. Copy of Canadian
Passport No. A1887019 of Arjun Singh has
been enclosed.

3.1 It is further stated in the FIR
that 'Roka'/ engagement ceremony of the
informant and Arjun Singh was performed
on 11.12.2022, wherein informant's father
gifted a gold chain (3.5 tola) to her
husband, Rs. 11,000/- each to father-in-law
and mother-in-law and Rs. 3100/- each to
Nanad
and
her
husband.
After
the
engagement ceremony, Arjun Singh went
back to Canada and no date of marriage
was decided as it had to be fixed as per
return schedule of Arjun Singh from
Canada. After some time, marriage was
slated for 25.06.2023. The informant, in the
FIR, further alleges that while the marriage
arrangements had been done by her father,
her father-in-law called her father asking to
spend at least Rs. 1 Crore in the marriage
ceremony and specified the guests to whom
cash envelops or gifts were to be presented,
including the booking of hotel and other
arrangements. While the informant's father
raised objection over the demands stepped
up by her father-in-law, he spoke that his
son is a Canadian citizen and a number of
persons are willing to spend Rs. 4 to 5
crore
in
the
marriage.
Under
such
compulsion, her father had to ensure the
arrangements of marriage.

3.2 As per the FIR, the marriage
was solemnized in Meghdoot Resort,
Ujjain, wherein about Rs. 55 lakh were
spent and ornaments of Rs. 8 lakh were
also given by her father. Informant's father
also gave her, gold and silver ornaments to
the worth of Rs. 95 lakh. After vidaai she
came to Hapur in the night at about 12
O'clock on 26.06.2023. The next morning
to change her dress, when she tried to find
the bag wherein the gold and silver
ornaments gifted by her father and the
ornaments given to her by her in-laws were
kept, it was not there. On being asked about
the said bag, her in-laws informed that all
the valuables are in their custody and have
been kept at safe place because of marriage
in the family.

3.3 Further allegations in the FIR
are that on 28.6.2023, after marriage
reception which was staged in Surya Hotel,
New Friends Colony, Delhi, they went to
London on 01.07.2023. They lived there for
about a month, where Arjun Singh
forcefully did unnatural sex and sans
condom stating that man's purpose is to
spread his genes and he does not believe in
using protection. Other than this, he got
10,000 pounds spent from her. The
informant came to know that her husband is
atheistic and eats beef despite belonging to
Hindu religion. The informant realized
changes in her husband's behaviour and
noticed that he never left his mobile and
use to send messages and had frequent
conversations with someone.

3.4 The informant next alleges
that she came back to India from London
on 30.07.2023 while her husband went to
Canada. The informant found out through
the location shared to her by her husband,
that her husband instead of living in his
house, used to live at another address in the
1920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nearby building. On being inquired through
her sources, the informant came to know
that Arjun Singh has been residing with a
woman, namely, Alfiya Shaheed Hasan,
resident of 265 Balliol Street, M4S1C9
Toronto for the last 13 years in a house as
husband and wife. Surprisingly, her fatherin-law and mother-in-law were also well
aware of the fact. Knowing about the said
situation, on being asked by family, Arjun
Singh came to India on 16.12.2023,
whereafter some family members of both
sides including the accused persons had
some conversation, wherein Arjun Singh,
his father and mother accepted about
Arjun's relationship with Alfiya Shaheed
Hasan for last 18 years, however, in-laws
of the informant asked her to excuse them
and start a new life with Arjun Singh,
however, Arjun Singh conspicuously said
that he cannot separate from Alfiya and the
informant may go with him to Canada if
she wants to live as his second wife.
Hearing the said words, the informant, her
parents and uncle (Taau) were astonished,
however, her father-in-law and mother-law
did not utter a word, which revealed that
they were already knowing about the illicit
relationship of their son.

3.5 Informant also alleged that
while she started to pack her luggage to go
with her parents from in-law's place, her
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law
unitedly stopped her from carrying any
article and even the informant was
restrained
from
taking
any
personal
belongings. It is further alleged that the
accused persons are exerting pressure upon
the informant asking her to live with the
existing scenario and even Alfiya Shaheed
Hasan is also calling and messaging the
informant from Canada, and asking to send
Arjun Singh to Canada soon. Copy of text
messages sent by Alfiya Shaheed Hasan are
appended. Further allegations in the FIR
are that the accused persons have played
fraud with the informant and her parents in
order to take dowry, and Rs. 1.20 crore
along with ornaments have also been taken
into possession including clothings, gifts
etc. amounting to Rs. 14 lakh. Informant
has brought on record the evidences with
respect to the aforementioned averments.

3.6 In the FIR, the informant
states that in respect to the abovementioned
facts, she had made a complaint in Mahila
Thana, Hapur on 07.01.2024 and to the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police
on
12.01.2024, for taking appropriate action
against the accused persons, however,
nothing has been done, thus, she moved an
application before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate
for
taking
action
against
husband - Arjun Singh, father-in-law -
Virendra Singh, mother-in-law Meenakshi
Singh and sister-in-law Swati Singh for
illegal possession of Rs. 1.20 crore,
criminal intimidation, dowry demand, for
unnatural sex against husband, forgery and
betrayal. She has suffered mentally and
socially, thus, offence be registered under
the relevant sections. Hence the present
application.
After
moving
the
said
application, on the order of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, the FIR was lodged.

4. After investigation charge-sheet
has been submitted against the accused
persons and the applicants have been
summoned by the order impugned dated
29.10.2024.

5. Learned Counsel for the parties
have submitted their written submissions as
permitted
by
this
Court
while
the
judgement was reserved. Same are taken on
record.

6.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
applicants submits that applicant nos. 1 & 2
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1921
are senior citizens (father in-law and
mother-in-law of informant). Applicant
No.3 is married sister-in-law and is residing
in a different city, namely, Ghaziabad.
They have been dragged into criminal
proceedings stemming from a matrimonial
discord between the informant (O.P. No.2)
and her husband, Arjun Singh. Despite
having no role, they are now facing
proceedings under severe penal provisions,
including Sections 498A, 307 IPC, 3/4 D.P.
Act,
etc.
Only
vague
and
general
allegations are made against the entire
family. Since husband is Canadian Citizen,
the informant is harassing the family
members of the husband.

 6.1 In this continuous harassment,
the informant has filed another FIR dated
29.11.2024 implicating the entire family
under Section 406 IPC. In the said case,
husband of Swati Singh (applicant no. 3)
has also been implicated. Copy of said FIR
has been brought on the record as
Annexure
No.SA-1
in
second
supplementary affidavit dated 16.03.2025.

6.2. Bringing the facts of the case
before the Court, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that on 28.11.2022,
applicant No.3 Swati Singh was married to
Atharva Sharma. To attend her marriage,
husband of informant Arjun Singh was in
India. On 11.12.2022, on the invitation of
Umesh Singh Chauhan, a distant relative
and neighbour of informant, applicants
alongwith Arjun Singh (husband) went to
Ujjain for the first meeting with the
informant's
family.
Surprisingly
the
informant's family insisted for 'Roka' and
performed the same despite unwillingness
of applicants' family. On 25.06.2023, in a
very hurried manner, the marriage was
fixed. Applicants and others (total 40
persons) reached Ujjain on 24.06.2023 and
came back on 26.06.2023 after marriage.

6.3 On 28.06.2023, reception was
held at Delhi. At the same time, Arjun
Singh has initiated the process for spouse
visa of Canada in favour of the informant.
It is pertinent to mention here that it is an
admitted case that the informant's family's
visa request for Canada had already been
rejected twice before marriage. Informant's
younger brother is already residing in
Canada.

6.4 On 01.07.2023 the informant
and husband went for honeymoon to
London. On 31.07.2023 informant returned
back to India as she was not having
Canadian Visa, while her husband went
back to Canada. In between 01.08.2023 to
22.12.2023, the informant remained in
Hapur house only for 20 days and she used
to fly frequently to Mumbai for undisclosed
reasons.
However,
the
family
never
objected.

6.5 On 16.12.2023 husband Arjun
Singh came back to India and directly went
to informant's house in Mumbai as
informant was residing in Mumbai at that
point of time. From there both went to Goa
and on 20.12.2023 they came to Hapur
from Goa. Then the applicants came to
know that under the threat of informant, a
tourist visa was also applied for the wife.
This time, the informant was accompanied
with 5 bodyguards.

6.6 On 22.12.2023, the informant
left
the
in-laws'
house
permanently
alongwith her parents and went to Mumbai.
On 24.12.2023, the informant's husband
went to Mumbai for solving the issues with
her, however, it did not materialize. On
28.12.2023, Arjun Singh alone came back
to his house in India and remained in Hapur
till 18.01.2024. On 07.01.2024, first
complaint was moved by the informant
before the police, which was not registered.
On
12.01.2024,
she
moved
second
complaint before the Senior Superintendent
1922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Police, Hapur, that too was also not
registered. Thereafter, on 23.01.2024 an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed.

6.7 Thereafter, pursuant to the
order of the court concerned on the
application filed by O.P. No. 2 under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.,
the
first
information report bearing Case Crime No.
191 of 2024 was lodged on 16.03.2024,
under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 494, 420
IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, against the husband and
his entire family including the applicants
without any specific, direct, or credible
allegation.

6.8
On
09.04.2024,
medical
examination was conducted in which no
external
injury
was
found
and
the
informant refused for internal examination.
On 09.04.2024, statements of the informant
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded,
in which she introduced another story
against mother-in-law and married sisterin-law to make out offence under Section
307 IPC. On 12.04.2024, statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded which
contain no allegation under Section 307
IPC. The Investigating Officer4 has also
recorded statements of other persons, i.e.,
the parents of informant who have also
attempted to introduce the story of Section
307 IPC against applicant Nos. 2 & 3, only
on the basis of hearsay evidence. On
20.04.2024, on the basis of available
evidence, the I.O. expunged the name of
Swati Singh and also expunged the alleged
offence under Sections 377, 394 and 420
IPC and proceeded for investigation only
against applicant Nos.1 and 2. and never
added the offence under Section 307 IPC.

6.9
On
the
complaint
of
informant, the Investigating Officer was
changed on 15.05.2024 and a new officer
took over the charge of investigation. On
31.05.2024, the new Investigating Officer
recorded the second statements of father of
informant, mother of informant, mediator
of
marriage,
namely,
Umesh
Singh
Chauhan under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who
have repeated the version of informant
given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No new
evidence
came
on
record.
This
Investigating Officer was transferred again.
On
11.06.2024,
again
the
third
Investigating Officer, namely, Raghuraj
Singh started the investigation and on the
basis of evidence collected by Neeraj
Kumar, as contained in Parcha No.10,
added Section 307 IPC and also restored
the offence under Sections 377, 394 and
420 IPC. Name of Swati Singh (applicant
no. 3) was again added, (Parcha No.11).
From 11.06.2024 till 19.08.2024, the
investigating
officer
namely
Raghuraj
Singh has conducted the investigation and
reduced the same from Parcha No. 11 to
Parcha No. 19. He collected the below
mentioned material:

i. Statement of Virendra Singh -
applicant No.1 was recorded on 17.08.2024
who denied the charges.

ii. Statement of Meenakshi Singh
-
applicant
No.2
was
recorded
on
17.08.2024 who denied the charges.

iii. Statement of Swati Singh -
applicant No.3 was recorded on 17.08.2024
who denied the charges.

iv. Statement of Medical Officer
was recorded on 17.08.2024 who denied
the charges.

Thus, it is clear that no further
evidence was collected in the investigation.

6.10
On
19.08.2024,
the
Investigation Officer on the basis of the
available material submitted the charge
sheet as detailed below:

1.
Against
applicant
No.1
(Father-in-law) under Sections 498A, 323
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1923

2.
Against
applicant
No.2
(Mother-in-law) under Sections 498A, 323,
307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.
Against
applicant
No.3
(married
sister-in-law)
under
Sections
498A, 323, 307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act.

6.11 However, the Circle Officer
returned the charge sheet on 23.08.2024,
raising specific issue that on what basis,
Section 307 IPC was added and name of
Swati Singh was included, which was
already expunged. Said objection has been
brought
on
record
at
Page
11
of
supplementary affidavit dated 02.02.2025.

6.12 On 13.09.2024 pursuant to
the aforesaid order of Circle Officer and
since Raghuraj Singh, the earlier I.O., was
transferred, the investigation was took over
by
new
Investigating
Officer
on
13.09.2024. He conducted the investigation
till 16.10.2024 which are contained in
Parcha Nos. 20, 21 & 22. However, he did
not collect any evidence. On 29.10.2024
without collecting any new evidence the
same charge sheet dated 19.08.2024 was
filed.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has laid emphasis on the
infirmities
in
evidences
on
record
summarizing
his
submissions
in
the
following manner:

7.1 The investigation process was
tainted by inconsistency, arbitrariness, and
bias. Repeated transfers of Investigating
Officers
created
a
fractured
and
inconsistent chain of investigation. No new
evidence was gathered to justify the revival
of dropped charges and improvements in
statement is also evident.

7.2 The Circle Officer, Hapur
clearly stated in its objection dated
23.08.2024, which has been brought on
record as Annexure-12 to the petition that
the chargesheet was filed without due
diligence and without consideration of
evidence. No explanation was offered for
deviation from prior findings.

7.3 Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, being
elderly parents of the husband and
applicant No.3 being married sister-in-law,
were dragged in the present case only due
to their relation. Statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. by the
informant
contain
general
and
uncorroborated assertions. No independent
witness supports her claims.

7.4
Statements
of
neutral
witnesses neighbours, namely, Sanjay Garg
and Shailly Garg confirmed that the
applicants
never
engaged
in
any
misconduct or cruelty, however, these vital
statements were ignored in the final charge
sheet.

7.5 The Investigating Officers
were frequently changed. I.O. - Anish
Ahmad conducted a diligent probe and
dropped severe charges, but successor I.O.
Niraj Kumar added Sections 377 and 307
IPC without justification. I.O. Raghuraj
Singh filed a charge-sheet despite clear
objections of the Circle Officer dated
23.08.2024 regarding negligence.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants contends that a perusal of the
evidence collected shows that no offence is
made out against the applicants. He has
framed his arguments on legal premises as
follows:

 A.
Virendra
Singh
chargesheeted under Section 498A, 323
IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act:

(i) There is no claim against
Virendra Singh regarding any kind of
demand of dowry rather the claim is only
about
the
customary
expenses
and
1924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrangements before marriage and of
marriage i.e. Roka ceremony and wedding
ceremony which are cultural practice and
not any dowry demand. The ingredients
required for invocation of Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are absent.

(ii) Insofar as Section 498A is
concerned, the essential ingredients are not
made out as there is no averment pertaining
to any 'cruelty' against Virendra Singh. No
overt act is shown against Virendra Singh

(iii) Section 323 IPC is not made
out as no allegation is in regard to causing
any hurt resulting in bodily pain, disease or
infirmity as provided in Section 319 IPC.

B.
Meenakshi
Singh
chargesheeted under Section 498A, 323,
307 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act:

(i) There is no claim against
Meenakshi Singh regarding any kind of
demand of dowry rather the claim is only
about
the
customary
expenses
and
arrangements before marriage and of
marriage i.e. Roka ceremony and wedding
ceremony which are cultural practice and
not any dowry demand. The ingredients
required for invocation of Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are absent.

(ii) Insofar as Section 498A IPC
is concerned, the essential ingredients are
not made out as there is no averment
pertaining
to
any
'cruelty'
against
Meenakshi Singh. No overt act is shown
against her.

(iii) Section 323 IPC is not made
out as no allegation is in regard to causing
any hurt resulting in bodily pain, disease or
infirmity as provided in Section 319 IPC.

(iv) Insofar as Section 307 IPC is
concerned, there is no allegation in FIR.
Only a vague allegation is made in the
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. however, in statement under
Section 164, Cr.P.C. no allegation is again
made. No external injury is found in the
medical report.

C. Swati Singh chargesheeted
under Section 498A, 323, 307 IPC & 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act:

(i) There is no claim against
Swati Singh regarding any kind of demand
of dowry rather the claim is only about the
customary expenses and arrangements
before marriage and marriage ie. Roka
ceremony and wedding ceremony which
are cultural practice and not any dowry
demand. The ingredients required for
invocation of Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are absent.

(ii) Insofar as Section 498A IPC
is concerned, the essential ingredients are
not made out as there is no averment
pertaining to any 'cruelty' against Swati
Singh as also no overt act is shown against
her.

(iii) Section 323 IPC is not made
out as no allegation is in regard to causing
any hurt resulting in bodily pain, disease or
infirmity as provided in Section 319 IPC.

(iv) Insofar as Section 307 IPC is
concerned, there is no allegation in the FIR.
Only a vague allegation is made in the
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. however, in statements under
Section 164, no allegation is again made
and no external injury is found in the
medical report.

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has straneously argued that the
court
below
has
mechanically
taken
cognizance
despite
glaring
procedural
lapses and a clear lack of prima facie case,
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
took
cognizance
on
29.10.2024
without
addressing
contradictions
in
the
investigation. In support of his submission
he has relied upon a judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of 'Pepsi Foods
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1925
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate5',
wherein the Apex Court has held that
Magistrates must apply judicial mind and
not act as post offices. However, this
principle was ignored by the court
concerned. In the case of Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. CBT6 the Apex Court has
reiterated that cognizance must be based on
sufficient material and not on vague or
omnibus allegations.

10. To strengthen his submissions
learned counsel for the applicants has relied
upon the following judgements of the
Supreme Court:

A. State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal7:

Paragraph
108:
"Where
a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

B. Sushil Kumar Sharma v.
Union of India8:

Para 19: "The object of the
provision is prevention of the dowry
menace. But as has been rightly contended
by the petitioner, many instances have
come to light where the complaints are not
bona fide and have been filed with oblique
motive. In such cases, the acquittal of the
accused does not in all cases wipe out the
ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to
the misery."

C. Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand9:

Para 30: "It is a matter of
common
knowledge
that
exaggerated
versions of the incident are reflected in a
large number of complaints. The tendency
of over-implication is also reflected in a
very large number of cases."

D. Geeta Mehrotra v. State of
U.P.10

Para 20: Placing reliance upon
paragraph-20 of the judgement of Supreme
Court passed in Geeta Mehrotra (supra),
learned counsel for the applicants submits
that 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 oblivious
of the fact that they reside separately."

E. Smt. Ruchi Tiwari v. State of
U.P.11:

Para 15: "In absence of specific
allegations of demand of dowry made after
marriage, and with no contemporaneous
evidence, it cannot be said that a prima
facie case under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is made out. Such general
assertions do not satisfy the statutory
requirements."

F. Learned counsel for the
applicants has also placed reliance on the
judgements in the case of
Kailash
Chandra Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and
others12 (Para 8-10); Pritam Ashok
Sadafule vs. State of Maharashtra &
others13, (Para 17 & 18); Varala Bharath
Kumar vs. State of Telangana14 (Para 69); Kartik Chand Majee vs. State of
Jharkhand & others15 (Para 9-11);
Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of
U.P.16 (Para 14 & 15); K. Subbarao and
others vs. State of Telangana17 (Para 5 to
8); Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P. and
others18 (Para 24, 25, 27, 28 & 31)
Seenivasan
vs.
State19
(Para
6-8);
Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar20
(Para 10-18); Social Action Forum for
Manav Adhikar and another vs. Union
of India, Ministry of Law and Justice
1926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others21, and Mohd. Akram Siddqui
vs. State of Bihar and another22.

11. On the cumulative strength of
the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted
by learned counsel for the applicants that
the proceedings of the criminal case
pending against the applicants are liable to
be quashed by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
submits that the present applicants who are
father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-inlaw, prior to the marriage have met with the
informant and her family and have lured
that Arjun Singh is unmarried and though
being a Canadian citizen, he wants to marry
an Indian Hindu girl, though it was well
within their knowledge that he is already
married with one Alfiya Shaheed Hasan in
Canada.

 12.1 The said misrepresentation
by the applicants were made only to satisfy
their thirst of dowry, which they knew that
they will get if the informant agrees to
marry, and also to gain social acceptance
for their son in the society that their son is
married to an Indian Hindu girl.
 12.2 Learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2 has placed forth the facts stating that
10 days' prior to marriage, applicant no.1
called the father of informant and asked to
spend 1 Crore rupees in the marriage,
thereafter
marriage
happened
on
25.06.2023 at Meghdoot Resort, Ujjain in
which
55
Lakhs
were
spent
on
arrangements and 95 Lakhs were spent on
Jewellery.

12.3 After the informant came to
know about the relation between the Alfiya
and her husband, she confronted the
applicants, but since they were already
knowing
it,
they
did
nothing.
On
22.12.2023 when the informant decided to
leave her matrimonial house, the applicants
denied to give any of her belongings. Prior
to the marriage, the applicants were
knowing that Arjun is married and settled
in Canada and only in order to obtain
dowry, the applicants through a conspiracy
have cheated the informant.

12.4 Learned counsel for the O.P.
No. 2 further contends that some relevant
statements have not been annexed by the
applicants while filing the present petition.
He has drawn attention of the Court to Case
Dairy Parcha No.10 dated 31.05.2024,
statement of father of informant namely
Ajay Huriya, mother Yogita Huriya and
mediator Umesh Singh Chauhan whereby
specific allegations have been raised
against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 i.e.
mother-in-law
and
sister-in-law,
respectively, that they have tried to
strangulate
the
informant
and
were
demanding dowry from the informant and
after which section 307 IPC was added by
the investigating officer in the present case.
The medical examination of the informant
was conducted after the 110 days of the
incident as the police did not bother to
register the first information report of
informant on time.

13. Legal premise, on which the
learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has
advanced his submissions stating that the
petition is devoid of merit are as follows:

13.1 The applicants only in order
to get relief, has not approached this Court
with clean hands, as 3 statements as
contained in CD Parcha No.10 on basis of
which the investigating officer of the
present case has added Section 307 IPC
against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the
present case, have deliberately not been
made part of present petition.
5 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1927

13.2 In the first information
report apart from allegations as levelled
against the absconding husband, namely,
Arjun Singh, there are specific allegations
against the applicants i.e father-in-law,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law who are the
main conspirators in the present case.

13.3 The applicants only in order
to get dowry and gifts have cheated the
informant and her family members, despite
knowing the fact that their son Arjun Singh
i.e. husband of informant is already married
and
settled
in
Canada.
Through
a
premediated mind and by conspiring with
each other, the applicants have first cheated
her, then harassed the informant mentally
and physically. Only because of money the
applicants have ruined the life of the
helpless informant who is a young lady,
and now she is living on the mercy of her
parents. Not only the husband but the
applicants have also harassed the informant
in order to fulfil their greed for the dowry

13.4 Perusal of statements of
witnesses namely Sanjay Garg and Shailly
Garg demonstrates that the witnesses are
specifically stating that Alfiya is friend of
Arjun Singh and they both have studied and
working
together,
and
as
such
the
apprehension raised by the informant
against her husband was not baseless rather
based on concrete evidence.

13.5 The applicant nos. 1 & 2
have deliberately married their son Arjun
Singh with the informant, only to get social
acceptance here in India and to grab money
in the form of dowry from the family of the
informant. Statement of informant recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically
contains allegations against the applicants
that after marriage when the informant
demanded her jewellery, applicant no.2
pushed her and also on the pretext of dowry
both
sister-in-law
and
mother-in-law
(applicant no.3 and 2) tried to strangulate
the informant.

13.6 Statement of the informant
recorded under Section 164 C.r.P.C.
specifically raises allegations against the
applicants that applicant no.1 was always
demanding dowry from the father of
informant, applicant no.2 misbehaved with
informant when she complained about her
husband,
namely,
Arjun
Singh,
also
applicant nos. 2 and 3 were causing
physical and mental harassment to the
informant for bringing dowry less than
their expectations. A perusal of statements
of the informant, and her family members
clearly
demonstrate
happening
of
cognizable offences and no benefit of the
minor discrepancies in the statements of
witnesses can be availed at this stage, as the
appropriate forum to look after the factual
aspects of the present case would be trial
court.

13.7 The husband of informant
namely Arjun Singh has absconded from
India, against whom Look out Circular
(LOC), Non-Bailable Warrants are issued
by the trial court and there are high chances
that the applicants would also escape from
India as soon as they get relief from this
Court. In the entire petition the applicants
have failed to demonstrate that they have
nothing to do with the husband of the
informant,
which
itself
proves
their
complicity in the present case.

13.8 Learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2 further contends that from a perusal
of the statements and material collected
during investigation, a prima-facie case is
made out against the applicants and the
ground on which the applicants are seeking
quashing of the present case cannot be seen
herein through the present application filed
under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inasmuch as there
is remedy to file discharge application
1928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 250 BNSS before the trial
court.