Rajeev Kumar Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2498 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajeev Kumar Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123426
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6150 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jainendra Kumar Mishra,Manish Tandon
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sudeep Pathak
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. The instant applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant no.1 Rajeev Kumar Yadav (husband), applicant no. 2 Tahn Singh (father-in-law), applicant no. 3 Smt. Virmawati (Mother-in-law), applicant no. 4 Sanjeev Yadav (Devar), applicant no. 5 Deepu Yadav (Devar) seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings of complaint Case No. 466 of 2013 (Vijay Raj Yadav vs. Rajeev Kumar Yadav and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., as well as summoning order dated 12.12.2014 issued by Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, IVth, Kanpur Nagar.

3. Perusal of record transpires that while entertaining the instant matter, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order 09.03.2015 rejected the claim of the applicant no. 1 (husband) for quashing of the aforementioned criminal proceedings and accorded protection to other applicants.

4. It is averred in the application that the story that has been set up in the complaint case is false and concocted and learned Magistrate without appreciating the statement under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued summoning order against the applicants. It is also averred that the allegations levelled in the complaint with malafide intention just to put undue pressure on the family members because of the matrimonial discord. It is claimed that all the allegations levelled on the family members are general and fake and the instant criminal proceeding is nothing else but pure abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.

5. Today when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant on 08.03.2007. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. not only against her husband but also against family members of her husband, who are applicant no.1 Rajeev Kumar Yadav (husband), applicant no. 2 Tahn Singh (father-in-law), applicant no. 3 Smt. Virmawati (Mother-in-law), applicant no. 4 Sanjeev Yadav (Devar), applicant no. 5 Deepu Yadav (Devar), with an oblique motive to harass not only the husband, but also the other family members, who have no direct involvement in the matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant nos. 2 to 5, who are family members of husband of victim, and the allegations levelled against them are general and omnibus in nature. It is contended that continuation of proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 INSC 505 and Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741.

6. Learned A.G.A. submits that the allegations made in the FIR against the applicants are correct and admittedly, there was additional dowry demand by the applicants. The averments made in the complaint has been fully corroborated by the statements of recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. There is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the additional demand of dowry and causing hurt to the opposite party no. 2 is against the applicant no.1 (husband), but to put undue pressure on the husband opposite party no. 2 had implicated his entire family members. Hence the case of applicant nos. 2 to 5 stands on different footing than the case of applicant no. 1.

9. However, upon careful consideration, this Court finds merit in the claim made with regard to applicant nos. 2 to 5, who are applicant no. 2 Tahn Singh (father-in-law), applicant no. 3 Smt. Virmawati (Mother-in-law), applicant no. 4 Sanjeev Yadav (Devar), applicant no. 5 Deepu Yadav (Devar). The allegations levelled against them are vague and general in nature. The complaint fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicant nos.2 to 5 were directly involved in any wrongdoing.

10. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

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

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the relatives of the husband except casual reference to their names, it would not be just to direct them to suffer the ordeal of facing criminal trial pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

12. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has reiterated the importance of preventing the abuse of the legal and judicial process in matrimonial disputes. The court emphasized that if the FIR fails to disclose specific allegations against the family members of husband, especially in matters of matrimonial bickering, it would be an abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically subject the named accused to trial. This principle is applicable to the present case, where the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature, lacking specific instances of wrongdoing. By quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants, the court ensures that the legal process is not misused to harass individuals based on unsubstantiated accusations, thus upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

13. However, so far as the general allegations are concerned, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:-

"19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law."

14. It is to be seen that the general and vague allegation in respect of a matrimonial dispute against in-laws is indicative of the fact that the allegations are founded in order to enhance the gravity of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam's case (supra) has quashed the proceedings of a matrimonial dispute due to the vague nature of allegations against the in-laws. It is evident that the same rationale applies in the present case. The Court has reiterated that relatives of the husband cannot be compelled to undergo trial without specific allegations of dowry demand and emphasized the need to discourage criminal trials that lack specific charges.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, has held that mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as 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 the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, considering the vague and general nature of the allegations against the applicants, and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court deems it fit to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant.

16. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it becomes imperative to assess the nature of the allegations levelled against applicant nos. 2 to 5. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, which has been mentioned hereinabove, highlights the common tendency to implicate not only the husband but also his immediate relations in complaints filed under Section 498-A IPC. However, it is essential for the courts to exercise careful scrutiny and consider pragmatic realities while dealing with such complaints, especially concerning allegations against distant relatives who may have had minimal or no involvement in the events alleged.

17. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicant nos 2 to 5, who are family members of husband of opposite party no.2, hence, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application qua the applicant nos. 2 to 5 is hereby ALLOWED and the entire criminal proceedings of complaint Case No. 466 of 2013 (Vijay Raj Yadav vs. Rajeev Kumar Yadav and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., as well as summoning order dated 12.12.2014 issued by Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, IVth, Kanpur Nagar are hereby QUASHED.

Order Date :- 24.7.2025

Bhanu