Sachendra Mohan Shukla And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 635 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sachendra Mohan Shukla And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74175
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33743 of 2016
 
Applicant :- Sachendra Mohan Shukla And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Niranjan,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the quashing the charge sheet dated 11.8.2016 and the summoning order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orain in Criminal Case No. 2684 of 2016 arising out of case crime No. 744 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kotwali Orai, district Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.

3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of O.P. no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 29.11.2012 but due to matrimonial discord, O.P. no.2 lodged an FIR by means of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against her husband and relatives of her husband, i.e. present applicants, on 27.07.2016 alleging demand of dowry and cruelty. However, apart from her husband, O.P. no.2 has implicated father and motherof applicant no.1, who are applicant nos.2 & 3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 06.08.2015.

4. In the instant application charge sheet dated 1108.2016 as well as summoning order dated 24.08.2016 have been assailed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint was made and without carrying preliminary enquiry FIR was registered. He further submits that registration of FIR without carrying enquiry has been deprecated by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumar Vs. Govt. of U.P. reported in AIR 2014 SC 187. He further submits that so far as applicant nos.2 & 3 are concerned, the allegations made in the FIR against them are general in nature. He further submits that the entire family members of applicant no.1 have been roped in just to put undue pressure. Hence, the instant proceeding is nothing else but pure abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submit that the allegations made in the complaint against the applicants are correct and admittedly, there was dowry demand by the applicants. The averments made in the FIR has been fully corroborated by the statements of witnesses and opposite party no.2, under Section 161 and 164 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 rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perused the record.

8. A bare perusal of the FIR and the evidence filed along with the application shows that O.P. no.2 had an FIR wherein she had implicated the entire family members of her husband (applicant no.1). It is a clear case of putting undue pressure on the husband by implicating his entire family members. Further perusal of the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant no.1, who is the husband of O.P. no.2.

9. Accordingly, the instant application qua applicant no.1 (husband) is dismissed.

10. However, upon careful consideration, this Court finds merit in the submissions made with regard to applicant nos.2 & 3. The allegations levelled against them are vague and general in nature. The complaint fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicant no.2 & 3 were directly involved in any wrongdoing. Even in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, no specific allegation has been made against applicant nos.2 & 3.

11. 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.?

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is 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."

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 & 3. 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.

18. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicant nos.2 & 3, who are family members of husband of O.P. 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 applicant nos.2 & 3 is hereby allowed and the charge sheet dated 11.8.2016 and the summoning order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No. 2684 of 2016 arising out of case crime No. 744 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kotwali Orai, district Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai qua the applicant nos.2 & 3 is hereby quashed

Order Date :- 7.5.2025

S.P.