# Viri Singh & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 328
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6782 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/viri-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53678
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by
the applicants, father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant-wife, seeking quashing of
the
Non-Bailable
Warrant
issued
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the
entire proceedings of Complaint Case instituted
under SS. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and SS. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act; the principal question for consideration
being
whether
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings against the applicants, based solely
on general, vague, and omnibus allegations
arising out of a matrimonial dispute, amounts to
an abuse of the process of court.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
SS.200, 202, 203, 204, 212, 213, 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 319, 323,
498-A, 504, 506, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - SS. 3, 4, 7(3) - Quashing of
proceedings
-
Allegations
vague
and
omnibus - Giving and taking dowry -
Absence of corroboration - Cruelty -
Definition and scope Vague allegations -
Abuse of process of law - Intentional
insult
and
criminal
intimidation
-
Ingredients not met - Hurt - No injury
proved.
Held: General, vague and omnibus allegations
have been made against applicants - No specific
role assigned - No particulars of time, place or
nature of demand or harassment disclosed -
Criminal proceedings against applicants (namely
Viri Singh and Smt. Kasturi Devi) including NonBailable Warrant order dated 24.5.2022 are
hereby quashed - Application allowed - Court,
however, left liberty to proceed with criminal
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
329
proceedings against other accused persons, if
any, in accordance with law.(Paras 34 to 43)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta
Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89; Neelu Chopra v.
Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184; Achin Gupta v.
State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369; Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana
& Anr., 2024 INSC 953.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

List of Keywords
Non-Bailable Warrant; Dowry Demand; Vague
Allegations;
Omnibus
Allegations;
Cruelty;
Harassment; Abuse of Process; Fair Trial;
Prudent Person; Summoning Order; Quashing.

Case Arising From
Complaint Case No.22 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Vs.
Anil Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana
Rakabganj, District Agra.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicants:
Uma Datta Tripathi
Advs. for the Respondents:
G.A., Vijay Kumar Mishra

## Text

_Characters 0–39,770 of 44,172. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39770 for what follows._

328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. This court is also aware that the
power conferred under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. which could be invoked by the
court only in order to meet the ends of
justice, for strong and valid reasons as per
the settled law, but at the same time, the
court while dealing with the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., should be
cautious enough that while denying any
opportunity, no prejudice is caused to
anyone. So far as the present case is
concerned, the PW-2 and the PW-3 are the
important witnesses, and therefore, the
opportunity of cross-examination of both
the witnesses is must, which is missing in
the present case.

17. Hence, without expressing any
view on the merits of the trial, the order
impugned dated 23.06.2025 passed on an
application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.,
by the learned trial court is unsustainable,
resultantly, the same is hereby set aside.

18. Consequently, learned trial court is
directed to afford the opportunity of crossexamination of both the witnesses, PW-2
and PW-3, by fixing a suitable date. It is
provided that if the appellant (accused)
does not cooperate or appear before the
learned trial court on the date fixed by the
learned trial court, liberty is granted to the
trial court to proceed in accordance with
law.

19.
The
application
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 6782 of 2023

Viri Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Uma Datta Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Vijay Kumar Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to an application under S.482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by
the applicants, father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant-wife, seeking quashing of
the
Non-Bailable
Warrant
issued
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the
entire proceedings of Complaint Case instituted
under SS. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and SS. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act; the principal question for consideration
being
whether
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings against the applicants, based solely
on general, vague, and omnibus allegations
arising out of a matrimonial dispute, amounts to
an abuse of the process of court.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
SS.200, 202, 203, 204, 212, 213, 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 319, 323,
498-A, 504, 506, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - SS. 3, 4, 7(3) - Quashing of
proceedings
-
Allegations
vague
and
omnibus - Giving and taking dowry -
Absence of corroboration - Cruelty -
Definition and scope Vague allegations -
Abuse of process of law - Intentional
insult
and
criminal
intimidation
-
Ingredients not met - Hurt - No injury
proved.
Held: General, vague and omnibus allegations
have been made against applicants - No specific
role assigned - No particulars of time, place or
nature of demand or harassment disclosed -
Criminal proceedings against applicants (namely
Viri Singh and Smt. Kasturi Devi) including NonBailable Warrant order dated 24.5.2022 are
hereby quashed - Application allowed - Court,
however, left liberty to proceed with criminal
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
329
proceedings against other accused persons, if
any, in accordance with law.(Paras 34 to 43)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta
Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89; Neelu Chopra v.
Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184; Achin Gupta v.
State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369; Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana
& Anr., 2024 INSC 953.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

List of Keywords
Non-Bailable Warrant; Dowry Demand; Vague
Allegations;
Omnibus
Allegations;
Cruelty;
Harassment; Abuse of Process; Fair Trial;
Prudent Person; Summoning Order; Quashing.

Case Arising From
Complaint Case No.22 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Vs.
Anil Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana
Rakabganj, District Agra.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicants:
Uma Datta Tripathi
Advs. for the Respondents:
G.A., Vijay Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
Applicants, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and
learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is preferred by Applicants for
quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated
24.5.2022 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra as
well as entire proceeding of Complaint
Case No.22 of 2017, Smt. Anju Vs. Anil
Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act,
Police
Station
Mahila
Thana
Rakabganj, District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party
no.2-complainant submits that he does not
intend to file any counter affidavit and the
matter may be heard on merits. The
opportunity of filing counter affidavit is
hereby closed.

4. With the consent of learned counsel
for parties, the matter is being heard.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for Applicants that Applicants are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of complainant. The
Applicants are summoned by order dated
11.9.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504,
506
I.P.C.
and
Section
3/4
Dowry
Prohibition Act. A perusal of complaint
would go to show that general, vague and
omnibus allegations have been made
against
Applicants,
who
are
family
members of husband. One of the allegation
in the complaint is that on 21.3.2016,
applicants along with husband of opposite
party no.2 have demanded dowry of Rs.5
lacs and have abused the opposite party
no.2. Such an incident has not been
substantiated in the statement of the
complaint, recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C., as in the aforesaid statement
general allegation with regard to demand of
dowry has been made. Specific allegation
of 21.3.2016 (in statement of complainant)
pertains to assault being made however,
there is no injury report on record.

6. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for Applicants that prior to filing of
aforesaid
complaint,
the
husband
of
opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Superintendent of Police, Agra
on 29.3.2016 against the conduct of the
wife on the fact that opposite party no.2 has
voluntarily left the home on 21.3.2016.
After
the
aforesaid
complaint
dated
29.3.2016, the matter was referred to the
Family Conciliation Centre where the
complainant had filed an application dated
26.4.2016 (which is at page 41 of the paper
book) wherein there is no allegation against
the Applicants and the sole allegation is
against the husband. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and
the criminal proceedings against the
Applicants are bad in law.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 has opposed the arguments raised by
learned counsel for Applicants and submits
that the Applicants are not permitting the
complainant-opposite party no.2 to reside
in the matrimonial home.

8. On a query being made to learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 with
regard to the document at page 41 of the
paper book, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 submits that the aforesaid
application is made before the Family
Conciliation Centre by the complainant.
There are serious allegation with regard to
demand of dowry in the complaint and
statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and as such the present application
is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent submits that in the
present case opposite party no.2 has filed a
complaint before the court of Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Agra
as
Complaint Case No.22 of 2017 with the
allegation
that
her
marriage
was
solemnized with accused Anil Kumar on
03.03.2014 and her father has given
sufficient dowry in his capacity, but in-laws
were not satisfied with the same and
demanded additional dowry, in the shape of
Rs.5 lacs cash and four wheeler vehicle, in
this regard they used to torture and harass
her and given threats for life and ultimately
on 23.8.2015 they have outsted wife from
the
house
after
beating
her.
After
registration of complaint, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Agra recorded the statement of
opposite party no.2 under Section 200
Cr.P.C. in which she has fully supported
the version of complaint and also recorded
the statements of witnesses, namely, P.W.1
Rajendra
Singh
and
P.W.2-Kamlesh
Kumari under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which
they have also supported the version of
complaint. Thereafter, Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Agra after considering
each and every aspect of the matter has
rightly summoned the present applicants
and one other accused, namely, Anil
Kumar for facing trial under Section 498A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act on 11.9.2017.

10. The opposite party no.2-wife has
preferred a complaint before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra
on 23.1.2017, the same was registered as
Complaint Case. No 22 of 2017 (Smt Anju
Vs. Anil Kumar and others) under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. As per allegation in the abovementioned complaint preferred by opposite
party No. 2-wife against husband-Anil
Kumar, Applicant no.1-father-in-law and
Applicant no.2-mother-in-law, the marriage
between opposite party no. 2 and husband
was solemnised on 3.3.2014 according to
hindu rites. It is alleged that in the marriage
Rs.18 lakhs cash and Rs.2 lakh furniture
were given at the time of marriage. It is
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
331
also alleged in the complaint that after
marriage when the opposite party no.2
reached
her
matrimonial
home
then
mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law,
brother-in-law and husband used to beat
opposite party no.2 and demanded Rs.5
lakhs and four wheeler car so that opposite
party no.2 live happily at matrimonial
home. On 3.1.2015, son was born out of
matrimonial accord. Even after the child
was born out of marriage, however,
behaviour of husband and his family
members did not improve and they used to
threaten opposite party no.2 to not inform
wife's family members of misbehaviour by
husband and his family members. In
February 2016, after marriage of sister of
opposite party no 2, when opposite party
no.2 went to her parents home and
informed about misbehaviour of husband
and his family members, thereafter father
of opposite party no.2 asked the husband
about the complaint made by opposite party
no. 2. The husband started abusing the
father of opposite party no.2 and stated that
till the time, demand of dowry is not
fulfilled, opposite party no 2 would be
harassed. When the father of opposite party
no. 2 talked to Applicant no. 1, he started
abusing. The sister-in-law and brother-inlaw
started
harassing
and
on
their
enticement, Applicants along with husband
started harassing the opposite party 2 for
dowry.

12. It is also alleged in the complaint
that Applicants along with husband used to
assault the opposite party No. 2 for dowry
and thereafter admitted the opposite party
No.2 to the hospital. Thereafter, the
conciliation proceedings were held between
the parties and opposite party no. 2 started
living with husband and his family
members and for 14 to 15 days there was
normalcy in the relationship, however,
sister-in-law and brother-in-law came to
house of husband and started abusing and
assaulted and demanded ₹ 5 lakh and one
car as dowry. The said incident is of March
2016. On 21.3.2016 demand was made for
dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and car by husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law,
husband of sister-in-law and has abused
and stated that if demand of dowry is not
fulfilled, opposite party no.2 will not be
permitted to enter the matrimonial home. It
is alleged that on 7.7.2017 complaint was
sent to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Agra for lodging of First Information
Report.

13. The court concerned thereafter has
recorded statement of opposite party no.2
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid
statement, it has been alleged that marriage
took place on 3.3.2014 and at the time of
marriage, father of opposite party No.2 has
given ₹ 18 lakh cash and other items,
however, husband and his family members
were not satisfied and were demanding
additional dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and four
wheeler car. It is also stated in aforesaid
statement that husband is not ready to keep
the wife unless demand is not fulfilled and
that the wife is living at her parent's home
for one and half years along with child. It is
also alleged that on 21.3.2014 opposite
party no.2 has been assaulted and has been
thrown out of the matrimonial home.

14. The court concerned thereafter has
recorded the statement of Rajendra Singh
(father of opposite party no. 2, wife) under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said witness has
stated that complainant is his daughter and
she was married on 3.3.2014 in accordance
with
hindu
rites
with
Anil
Kumar
(Husband). It is stated that at the time of
marriage a sum of ₹ 20 lakh was expended.
After the marriage, husband, mother-in-
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
law, sister-in-law and father-in-law used to
taunt the complainant for less dowry and
demanded ₹ 5 lakhs and four wheeler car
otherwise will not keep the complainant at
home. During the subsistence of marriage
on 3.1.2015 one son was born out of
marriage, however, no change in the
behaviour of in-laws and husband was
found. In February 2016, when the
complainant came back to house of witness
for the purpose of marriage of younger
sister of complainant then all the aforesaid
incident were informed to Rajendra Singh.
On 2.3.2016 demand for ₹ 5 lakhs and one
car was made by accused persons and have
assaulted and have thrown the complainant
out of the house and threatened of divorce.

15. Thereafter the statement of Smt.
Kamlesh
Kumar
being
mother
of
complainant
was
recorded.
The
said
witness has stated that the complainant is
her daughter and she was married on
3.3.2014 in accordance with hindu rites
with Anil Kumar (Husband). After the
marriage, husband, mother-in-law, sisterin-law and father-in-law used to taunt the
complainant for less dowry and demanded
₹ 5 lakhs and four wheeler otherwise will
not keep the complainant at home. In
February 2016, when the complainant came
back to the house of witness for the
purpose of marriage of younger sister of
complainant then all the aforesaid incident
were informed to Rajendra Singh. On
2.3.2016 demand for ₹ 5 lakhs and one car
was made by accused persons and have
assaulted and thrown the complainant out
of the house.

16. A bare perusal of complaint would
go to show that complaint was preferred on
23.1.2017 and the same was registered as
Complaint Case No. 22 of 2017 (Smt. Anju
Vs Anil Kumar and others). A perusal of
para-4 of the aforesaid complaint would go
to show that on 7.1.2017 at the first time
complaint
was
made
to
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Agra, however,
no action was taken. Applicants in
paragraph 6 of the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has specifically alleged
that husband on 29.3.2016 has moved an
application
before
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Agra disclosing
that present complainant-opposite party
no.2 was continuously creating nuisance in
the matrimonial home and is threatening
the Applicants to implicate in a false case.

17. When the opposite party no.2
came
to
know
about
the
aforesaid
application dated 29.3.2016 of husband,
opposite party no.2 is said to have preferred
an application dated 26.4.2016 before the
Superintendent of Police, Agra (Nodal
Officer Parivar Paramarsh Kendra). The
aforesaid application dated 26.4.2016 is
filed along with present application at page
41 of paper book. A perusal of aforesaid
application dated 26.4.2016 of opposite
party No. 2 would go to show that no
allegation has been made against present
Applicants and all the allegations (in
application dated 26.4.2016) are directed
against husband of complainant. It is
further to be noted that in complaint filed
by complainant before the court concerned
the last allegation is of 21.3.2016. The
application dated 26.4.2016 has not been
denied by counsel for opposite party no.2.
In the application dated 26.4.2016, there is
no allegation against Applicants and it has
not been explained by counsel for opposite
party no. 2 as to why subsequent complaint
has been filed before the court concerned,
allegations have been made against the
present Applicants although the same were
not in the application dated 26.4.2016
before police authorities.
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
333

18. It is further to be noted that in
affidavit filed along with application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in para 13, it has been
specifically stated that Applicants have not
assaulted opposite party no. 2 nor have
demanded dowry and it has been further
alleged that complaint has been filed to
implicate the entire family members for
fulfilling
malafide
intentions
of
complainant of her encroaching upon the
money of the family of Applicants. It has
also been alleged in the affidavit filed in
support of application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. that general role has been assigned
to Applicants and that no offence is made
out against Applicants.

19. It is to be seen that Applicants are
prosecuted under Section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code provides penal consequences
where the husband or relative of husband of
a woman subjects such woman to cruelty.
The cruelty has been defined in the
explanation appended to Section 498A of
Indian
Penal
Code.
There
are
two
explanations
provided
under
the
aforesaid provision for interpretation of
the word "cruelty" provided under the
aforesaid section. The explanation (a)
provides that the "cruelty" would mean
any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical). The explanation (b)
provides cruelty would mean harassment
of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coerce her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure of her
or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

20. The provisions of Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code prescribes as under :-

"498A. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purposes
of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or

(b) harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."

21. In the present case, there is no
allegation that the Applicants have offered
any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of woman.
The counsel for opposite party no. 2 has
neither relied upon any grave injury
suffered by opposite party no. 2 nor has
relied upon any medical report in this
respect. It is not in dispute between the
parties that no medical practitioner was
examined in support of complaint before
the court concerned. It is not alleged in the
complaint nor any material circumstances
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been shown on behalf of opposite
parties that the conduct of Applicants was
of such a nature as is likely to drive the
wife to commit suicide.

22. It is further to be noted that as per
prosecution case, it is alleged that the wife
was being subjected to harassment by
Applicants and other family members and
demanding amount to meet unlawful
demand. For the purpose of prosecution
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,
it is imperative that the woman should be
subjected to cruelty by the husband or
relative of the husband of a woman. As per
explanation (b) of the aforesaid section, it
is imperative that the harassment of woman
should be with a view of coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to the woman
to meet such demand.

23. A perusal of complaint would go
to
show
that
general
and
omnibus
allegations have been made against family
members of husband with regard to
demand of dowry. Although in complaint,
it has been stated that husband and his
family members were demanding dowry of
₹ 5 lakhs and a four wheeler, however,
neither the date and nor the time of alleged
demand
has
been
disclosed
in
the
complaint. In respect of incident dated
21.3.2016, it is alleged that husband and
family members were demanding ₹ 5 lakh
and car, however, a perusal of the statement
of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C
would go to show that in respect of alleged
incident of 21.3.2016, only allegation of
assault has been made and no allegations
have been made in the aforesaid statement
with regard to demand of dowry. The
statement of complainant also does not
disclose the details of harassment which
has been incurred by Applicants to the
wife-complainant in respect of demand for
dowry.

24. Criminal law is set in motion by
lodging of First Information Report or
Complaint. The investigation/prosecution is
carried upon to find the truth in allegations.
Setting in motion criminal law entails
consequences including curtailing of liberty
of individual. The criminal law machinery
is based on the nature of allegations and the
evidence
found
during
investigation/prosecution/enquiry.
It
is
important for prosecution to provide
precise details of allegations and evidence
to support the prosecution case.

25. Vague, ambiguous and omnibus
allegations can violate the right of accused
to process of law and fair trial. It is
fundamental principle of law that accused
be subjected to fair trial. Vague allegation
has significant effect on defence by
creating
uncertainty.
Without
specific
details and evidence, the defence of
accused may be prejudiced or the accused
may not be able to effectively defend
himself.

26. Vague allegation can affect the
defence of accused by making it difficult to
formulate a targeted defence strategy.
Without clear specifics or evidence to
address, accused may struggle to refute the
allegations or present a compelling counter
argument.
Lawyers/Advocates
typically
rely on specific information to prepare their
case, such as dates, time, location, and
witnesses. Vague allegations lack these
crucial details, leaving the defence to
speculate or generalize their response,
which can weaken their defence in court.
The mere suggestion of wrong doing,
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335
without substantiation, can lead to stigma
and prejudice against the accused, making
it harder for them to receive a fair trial.
Moreover, vague allegations may prolong
legal proceedings as the defence attempts
to gather more information to understand
the accusations fully.

27. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Supreme
Court has has laid down the categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. One of the
categories
pointed
out
in
the
said
judgement is stated in para 102 (5) which is
quoted herein below :

"(5) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused."

28. In law, prudent person is a
hypothetical person who in the facts and
circumstances
would
conduct
in
a
reasonable, just and fair manner. In the
context of vague allegations at the stage of
cognizance or summoning of accused, it is
to be examined whether on the basis of the
allegations in the complaint or the first
information
report
and
the
evidence
collected during investigation it can be said
that a prudent person would come to the
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The
insufficiency of ground for proceedings
against an accused may also arise when
material particulars and details in respect of
the
alleged
offence
are
absent
in
prosecution case. The sufficiency of
material against an accused is a condition
precedent for proceedings against an
accused.

29. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.
Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 the
Supreme Court has laid emphasis that the
complaint must contain material to enable
the court to make up mind for issuing
process.

"5. Section 203 of the Code
empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a
complaint without even issuing a process. It
uses the words "after considering" and
"the Magistrate is of opinion that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding".
These words suggest that the Magistrate
has to apply his mind to a complaint at the
initial stage itself and see whether a case is
made out against the accused persons
before issuing process to them on the basis
of the complaint. For applying his mind
and forming an opinion as to whether there
is sufficient ground for proceeding, a
complaint must make out a prima facie
case to proceed. This, in other words,
means that a complaint must contain
material to enable the Magistrate to make
up his mind for issuing process. If this were
not the requirement, consequences could be
far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue
process in every case, the burden of work
before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom
process
is
issued
would
be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words "if in the opinion of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding". The words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" again suggest that ground
should be made out in the complaint for
proceeding against the respondent. It is
settled law that at the time of issuing of the
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
process the Magistrate is required to see
only the allegations in the complaint and
where allegations in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute an offence
against a person, the complaint is liable to
be dismissed."

30. The question therefore arises what
is the material which is required to be
before the court to issue process under
criminal law. The material facts and
particulars to constitute an offence are
required to be shown by prosecution before
the court proceeds to issue the process. The
material facts and particulars are those facts
which essentially would be required to
constitute an offence. These facts would
also include such facts which the law
recognises
as
important
facts
for
proceeding with the trial of the case. These
facts are also necessary to bring fairness in
the process of trial. In this respect, Sections
212 and 213 of Cr.P.C. (Section 235 & 236
BNSS) also recognises that the charge shall
contain particulars of time and place of
offence and the particulars of the manner in
which the alleged offence was committed.

31. The rule of law requires that
accused is visited with specific allegations
in criminal prosecution. Specific allegation
under criminal law would require that date,
time and place of alleged offence is
specified (more particularly when the
complainant is the victim having personal
knowledge), the details of person against
whom the offence is committed or the thing
in respect of which the offence was
committed. The allegations should also
describe the manner in which the offence is
committed. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti,
(2009) 10 SCC 184 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has emphasised the need for specific
and proper allegation in criminal law. In
this reference para 9 of the Neelu Chopra
Judgement (Supra) is quoted herein below :

"9. In order to lodge a proper
complaint, mere mention of the sections
and the language of those sections is not
the be all and end all of the matter. What is
required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and
the role played by each and every accused
in committing of that offence."

32. In Achin Gupta Vs State of
Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the Supreme
Court has laid emphasis that general and
sweeping
allegation
without
specific
instance is an abuse of process of court. In
this reference para 25 of the Achin Gupta
(Supra) is quoted herebelow :-

"25. If a person is made to face a
criminal trial on some general and
sweeping allegations without bringing on
record any specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the
process of the court. The court owes a duty
to subject the allegations levelled in the
complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find
out, prima facie, whether there is any grain
of truth in the allegations or whether they
are made only with the sole object of
involving certain individuals in a criminal
charge,
more
particularly
when
a
prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute"

33. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana &
Others Vs State of Telangana &
Another 2024 INSC 953, the Supreme
Court has observed that vague allegation
may lead to misuse of legal process. In
this respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted
herein below:-
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337

"18. A bare perusal of the FIR
shows that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus.
Other than claiming that appellant No.1
harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6
instigated him to do so, respondent No.2
has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of
harassment. She has also not mentioned the
time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore,
the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.

28. The inclusion of Section 498
of the IPC by way of an amendment was
intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across
the
country,
accompanied
by
growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there
has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498 of the IPC as a
tool for unleashing personal vendetta
against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if
not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of
legal processes and an encouragement for
use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or
her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498 the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands
of a wife. Consequently, this Court, time
and again, cautioned against prosecuting
the husband and his family in the absence
of a clear prima facie case against them."

34. A bare perusal of complaint and
statement of opposite party no 2 would go
to show that general, vague and omnibus
allegations
have
been
made
against
Applicants. It has not been disclosed in
complaint or in statement of opposite party
no.2 as to role assigned to Applicants. The
complainant or statement of opposite party
no.2 before the trial court does not specify
the details of harassment including the date
and time when the same is meted out to the
opposite party no.2-wife. Even the date of
demand of dowry and the manner in which
demand for dowry is made is not stated. In
the statement of opposite party no.2,
general and vague allegation with regard to
demand of dowry are made. It is further to
be noted that although the complainant
states that on 21.3.2016 accused persons
including
Applicants
have
demanded
dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and four-wheeler car,
however,
the
aforesaid
allegation
in
complaint has not been supported in the
statement of opposite party no 2 before the
court concerned.

35. Under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, receiving and giving
of dowry is punishable offence. It is alleged
in the complaint that cash and other items
were given to accused person at time of
marriage, however, no details has been
given as to person to whom the aforesaid
cash and other items were given and
whether the same were in the nature of gifts
in the marriage or in the nature of dowry.
The vague and omnibus allegations have
been made in the complaint with regard to
giving of dowry in the marriage. Under
Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act even
giving dowry is an offence, however,
Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 prohibits prosecution of a person who
is giving dowry for offence under this Act
on the basis of statement made by him. The
aforesaid provision has resulted that a
person who is taking dowry is being
prosecuted, however, a person who is
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
giving dowry is barred by law from being
prosecuted nor any action is being taken
against them. The law under Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act declares the person
giving dowry as offender however, bars
prosecution under Section 7(3) of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

36. It is admitted to complainant and
her father that dowry was given at the time
of marriage to the tune of Rs. 18 lakhs in
cash, the court concerned summoned the
Applicants on the basis of statements of
complainant and her father who admit
being involved in giving of dowry [in effect
has violated the provisions of giving dowry
under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act], then it was necessary that the court
concerned while summoning the accused to
seek
corroborating
material
and
circumstances in respect of taking of dowry
by the Applicants. Mere bald allegation by
a
person,
who
is
giving
dowry
(complainant) may not be sufficient for a
prudent man to believe. In the present case,
there is no corroborating material to
demonstrate that the cash is given to
Applicants as dowry at the time of
marriage. Such bald allegation with regard
to giving and taking of dowry by a person
(complainant or his family members) who
has violated the mandate of Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sole
circumstance to prosecute, as no prudent
man can rely on the statement of the
complainant (Who himself has violated the
law) without there being corroborative
material or circumstance. It is further to be
noted that the date, place, time and the
manner in which alleged dowry is said to
have been given by complainant or his
father has neither been stated in the
complaint
nor
in
the
statement
of
complainant. The marriage took place on
3.3.2014 and the complaint has been filed
on 21.1.2017, neither in the complaint nor
in the statement of complainant it has been
explained as to why offence of taking
dowry was not reported in the year 2014
itself and why after three years such
allegations have been raised against the
applicants. The aforesaid is further more
significant as in the above-mentioned
application dated 26.4.2016 of opposite
party no.2-complainant, the complainant
has made no allegation with regard to
harassment or demand of dowry or
receiving of dowry against the Applicants.
All the allegations in the application dated
26.4.2016 is directed against the husband
and not against the Applicants. In view of
aforesaid, general, vague and omnibus
allegations
have
been
made
against
Applicants, (who are family members of
husband) as such, the aforesaid allegations
cannot be a ground for summoning the
Applicants-accused under Sections 498-A
of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.

37. Insofar as the allegations with
regard to demand of dowry in violation of
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is
concerned, in the statement of opposite
party No. 2 except a general and bald
allegations with regard to demand of dowry
against entire family members of the
husband, there is no specific allegation.
Even in the statement of complainant, in
respect of incident dated 21.3.2016, it is not
alleged that on the aforesaid date any
demand of dowry was made although in the
complaint such allegation existed. Once the
complainant in her statement before the
court concerned has not supported the
allegations in the complaint. In this respect,
summoning order could not have been
issued in respect of offence under Section 4
of
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
more
particularly when it is not alleged that
8 All. Viri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339
demand of dowry was made at the place
where the parents of the complainant
reside.

38. The Applicants has also been
summoned under Sections 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code. The Applicants have
put to challenge the summoning under the
aforesaid sections on the ground that no
offence is made out. The offence under
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
prescribes
that
whoever
intentionally
insults, and thereby gives provocation to
any person, intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him
to break the public peace, or to commit any
other offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both. The offence under
Section 504 I.P.C. requires that there
should be intentional insult and thereby
giving provocation to any person intending
or knowing that such provocation will
cause him to break public peace or to
commit any offence. In the present case,
there are no material circumstances to show
that there was any intentional insult which
would give provoction to the wife to cause
any break of public peace or to commit any
offence as such the material ingredient of
offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is not
made out from the prosecution case.
Further, Section 506 provides punishment
for offence of criminal intimidation.

39.
The
offence
of
criminal
intimidation has been drescribed under
Section 503 of Indian Penal Code and the
same is quoted here in below :-

"503. Criminal intimidation.-
Whoever threatens another with any injury
to his person, reputation or property, or to
the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause
that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the execution
of
such
threat,
commits
criminal
intimidation.

Explanation.-A threat to injure
the reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is interested,
is within this section."

40.