Allahabad High Court
Mananjay Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104593
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21880 of 2025
Applicant :- Mananjay Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava (AoR A/S 1098/12) holding brief of Sri Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint No. 8504 of 2020 (Smt. Raj Nandani Vs. Mananjay Kumar and others), under Section 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Rura, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Kanpur Dehat.
3. The case set forth in the application is that on 04.11.2020, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the wife of the applicant no. 1, marriage whereof was solemnized on 13.06.2019 against her husband father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-laws alleging that though various offerings were made and huge expenditure was incurred in the marriage by the opposite party no. 2 side but additional dowry was being sought to be demanded by the applicants herein and on account of non-satisfaction of the same, the opposite party no. 2 was locked in the house and she was not provided adequate food pursuant whereto she became weak and ailing and further allegation is that even kerosene oil was stated to be poured just in order to done away the opposite party no. 2 and, thus, the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act stood committed. As per the allegation in the complaint being subjected to atrocities and maltreatment the opposite party no. 2 starting living with her parents for certain time and thereafter, the parents of the opposite party no. 2 left the opposite party no. 2 to her maternal house. Allegations have been levelled that on 25.09.2020 & 27.09.2020 the opposite party no. 2 was administered beating. Post recording of the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2-complainant and of Dilip Kumar under Section 202 followed by Rashmi Lata under Section 202. The court below on 09.12.2021 summoned the applicants herein under Section 498A, 323 and while applying the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 did not summon the Nanads.
4. Questioning the summoning the applicant preferred revision whereupon the matter was referred for mediation and the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 09.12.2021 was stayed, however, the mediation failed, a report whereof at page 71 of the paper book dated 08.04.2025 questioning the summoning order, the applicant has preferred the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled without there being any specific allegation against the applicant particularly when the entire allegations if taken into face value would not amount to any criminality. Submission is that no dowry whatever was demanded and further there is no question of maltreating or subjecting the opposite party no. 2 to atrocities particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any injury was sustained by the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the dates so mentioned in the complaint dated 04.11.2020 for committing marpeet and throwing away the opposite party no. 2 from the matrimonial house is false. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has submits that whatever might once the matter stood referred for mediation and mediation was not successful then in view of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. now the case becomes triable and the court may not adjudged the merits of the matter.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
7. At the instance of the applicant, challenge has been raised to the summoning order. There are certain broad parameters which have adhered to in order to determine as to whether the summoning order suffers from any illegality, amongst others once of the factors inevitably would be the nature of the allegations and the complain and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In case, there are no material contradictions and the witnesses support the prosecution theory then the case becomes triable.
8. Applying the said principle in the facts of the case, an irresistible conclusion stands drawn there are specific allegations against the applicants husband father-in-law, mother-in-law with regard to demand of dowry also assault being made on 25.09.2020 and 27.09.2020. Even conduct of the applicant no. 2 father-in-law has been questioned in the complaint with regard to indecent behaviour. The statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the witnesses also support the said theory apparently the statement of the opposite party no. 2 complainant under Section 200 relates to the date being 25.09.2020 and 27.0-9.2020 the dates on which the demand of dowry was made and non-fulfillment assault was made so much so the statement of Dilip and Rashmi Lata also do not depict any material contradiction so as to outrightly even on prima facie basis overall the attraction of the penal sections. Even otherwise the court below while summoning the applicants have considered the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the complaint. Once the said position being so, this Court at this juncture is not required to delve into factual issues while adjudging the veracity of the allegations as they are subject matter of trial. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be preferring a discharge application.
9. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same.
10. Considering the submissions so made across the bar, the application stands disposed of, it shall be open for the applicant to prefer a discharge application before the court below and, in case, such an application is preferred the court below has no reasons to disbelieve that the court below shall decide in correct perspective.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025
Rajesh
