Allahabad High Court
Smt. Subha Garg vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29667
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 445 of 2025
Applicant :- Smt. Subha Garg
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Vaish,Amrendra Singh,Shivali Bansal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that; The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased;
I. to quash the summoning order dated 04/03/2025 issued by the learned J.M. I"/ATS Court, Lucknow in crime no. 144/2024, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. r/w 3/4 Dowery Prohibition Act 1961 registered at Police Station- Sadatganj, West Commissionerate, District- Lucknow in respect of applicant (Annexure No. 1 with the petition).
II. to quash the impugned Charge-sheet no. 126466/2024 (UPLKO41264942024) new no. 20850/2025 in aforesaid crime no. in respect of applicant. (Annexure No. 2 with the petition).
III. to quash the impugned F.I.R. in aforesaid crime no. dated: 24/08/2024 registered at Police Station- Sadatganj, West Commissionerate, District- Lucknow. in respect of applicant (Annexure No. 3 with the petition).
IV. to quash all other criminal trial proceedings if any, persuade in pursuance of summoning order dated 04/03/2025 in respect of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R dated 24.08.2024 has been lodged by respondent no. 2 against the named accused persons including the applicant, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant and against Shri Ashish Agarwal i.e the husband of the complainant i.e. the brother of the applicant who had continuously been harassing the complainant by demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry. On 28.12.2023, at around 8 A.M, the applicant and the husband of the complainant had forced the complainant to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- and started hurling abuses and beaten the complainant. On 29.12.2023, the complainant had got her tickets booked for 30.12.2023 and returned to Lucknow at her parents' place.
3. The Police, after investigation, has filed the chargesheet under Sections mentioned in the F.I.R against the applicant and her brother, who is the husband of the complainant and the court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summons against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a married woman living separately having two children and she has nothing to do with the said offence as mentioned/alleged against her for which the chargesheet has been filed.
5. It is further submitted that in case if there is any demand, that might be by his brother i.e. the husband of the complainant and not by the applicant. It is further submitted that no specific allegation, date or time of the incident has been mentioned for making out an offence against the applicant under sections mentioned in the F.I.R. The whole family has been roped in by the complainant just to harass them. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Chaddha versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019. The relevant paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A I.P.C, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. appropriately encapsulates this essence as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."
14. The term "cruelty" is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law."
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that there is a specific allegation with a particular date and time of the incident against the applicant and he further submitted that the whole family has not been roped in while lodging of the F.I.R by the complainant, hence the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the complainant has lodged an F.I.R only against the applicant and her husband (brother of the applicant), and not against her mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar), who were residing in the same house. If the complainant had any intention to rope in all the family members in vengeance, she could have lodged an F.I.R against all the family members of her husband who were residing in the same house.
8. The involvement of the applicant could not be seen in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it requires leading of evidence and this court is not holding any mini trial.
9. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly paragraph-13 and 14, quoted hereinabove, is not applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that in para-13 of the said case, it has been mentioned that in the complaint, the aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately are arrayed as accused, which is not there in the present case. The complainant has not falsely implicated any other family member residing in the same house, so the fact that the married sister was living separately does not make any relevance in the present case. As far as any specific incident is concerned, the specific date and time is mentioned in the F.I.R as to whether any such incident had occurred or not, it requires leading of an evidence, which could not be seen in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C by holding a mini trial, as held in the case of C.B.I versus Aryan Singh 2023 SCC Online SC 379 and in the case of Naresh Aneja versus State of U.P, reported in 2025 (2) SCC 604.
10. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below and thus, no interference is called for.
11. The present application is devoid of merits hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2025
DiVYa
