Allahabad High Court
Bhupendra Nath Bajpayee And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1400 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhupendra Nath Bajpayee And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava,Km.Pratibha Vaish
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anil Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No.5, A.D.J., Lucknow as well as order dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.26, Lucknow in Case No.3384 of 2015: State vs Prithvi Nath Bajpayee & Ors, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.104 of 2012 Police Station P.G.I., Lucknow.
2, The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party No.2 (Smt. Preeti Rani Bajpayee). The FIR came to be registered at Case Crime No.104 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station P.G.I., Lucknow against the petitioners and their son, who is husband of opposite party No.2.
3. The prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
4. Though there is allegation of demanding an Alto car as additional dowry from opposite party No.2 and her family members and for the said demand the prosecutrix was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the petitioners and husband of opposite party No.2, the prosecutrix in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that neither her husband nor mother-in-law or father-in-law ever demanded any dowry and they never subjected her to cruelty for dowry demand. She said that she was a heart patient and by telling lies she would be a part of falsehood. The mother of the complainant also did not allege any dowry demand or subjecting the complainant to cruelty for dowry demand.
5. Whole allegation is that the petitioners and their son neglected opposite party No.2. She is a heart patient and when they could come to know about this fact, which was withheld from them at the time of marriage, behaviour and attitude of the petitioners and her husband towards opposite party No.2 became bad and they started neglecting her.
6. Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs State of Bihar & Ors: [2022 (120) ACC 276] has held that there is an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as an instrument to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. Relatives of the husband are implicated by general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, and if it is left unchecked that would result in misuse of the process of the Court and law.
7. Considering the stand of the complainant in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out against the petitioners. This court is of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court against the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party No.2.
8. The petition is allowed.
9. Proceedings of order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No.5, A.D.J., Lucknow as well as order dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.26, Lucknow in Case No.3384 of 2015: State vs Prithvi Nath Bajpayee & Ors, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.104 of 2012 Police Station P.G.I., Lucknow so far as it relate to the petitioners are quashed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
prateek
