Ramashray Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7284 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramashray Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90828
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12084 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Ramashray Yadav And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.B. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned Charge-sheet dated 24.09.2016 in Case No. 1715 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2016, under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of O.P. no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 17.04.2008. Due to matrimonial discord, O.P. no.2 lodged FIR against her husband and relatives of her husband, on 23.05.2016. In the FIR, it was alleged that O.P. no.2 was subjected to various kinds of cruelty by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of their demand of additional dowry. Further allegation is that the accused persons committed atrocities before throwing her out of the matrimonial home. However, apart from her husband (applicant no.1), O.P. no.2 has implicated applicant No. 2 (Mother-in-law). Apart from aforesaid proceeding, O.P. no.2 has filed complaint case as well as preferred an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 24.09.2016 and learned court below has taken cognizance against the applicants, which has been assailed in the instant application.

4. Record shows that the coordinate Bench of this Court while entertaining the matter had already refused to quash the proceedings of the instant matter against the applicant no. 1 (husband) and finally disposed off the application so far as the application no. 1 is concerned, vide order dated 19.07.2017 and provided protection to the applicant no. 2.

5. So far as applicant no. 2 are concerned, it is claimed that without carrying out proper investigation chargesheet has been submitted on 24.09.2016 and the allegations made in the FIR against her are general in nature. It is also claimed that the entire family members of applicant no.1 have been roped in just to put undue pressure. It is further claimed that instant proceeding is nothing else but pure abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submit 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 FIR has been fully corroborated by the statements of witnesses recorded 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 and perused the record.

8. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that O.P. no.2 had filed a 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. Even though the application with regard to applicant no. 1 husband had already been refused earlier, this Court upon careful consideration finds merit in the submissions made with regard to applicant no.2 who is 98 years old. The allegations levelled against her are vague and general in nature. The FIR fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicant no.2 was directly involved in any wrongdoing.

9. In the matter ofGeeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741, 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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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:-

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it becomes imperative to assess the nature of the allegations levelled against applicant no. 2. 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.

16. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicant no.2, who is mother-in-law 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 no.2 is hereby allowed and Charge-sheet dated 24.09.2016 in Case No. 1715 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2016, under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, so far it relates to applicant no. 2 is hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

Bhanu