Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7320 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90801
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9964 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar
 

 
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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2010 (Smt. Lata vs. Arvind Kumar and others) in which summoning order dated 16.05.2011 has been passed, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Soron, District Kanshiram Nagar.

3. While entertaining the instant application, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 remitted the matter to the Mediation Centre of the High Court for settlement of the dispute amicably, as the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute.

4. But, report of Mediation Centre dated 20.07.2017 submitted by Registrar, AHCMCC shows that parties were not willing for the mediation.

5. Today when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint has been lodged falsely by Opposite Party No.2, wife of applicant no. 5, with an oblique motive to harass not only her husband (applicant No.5), 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 family members, 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. Per contra, learned AGA submits that, in so far as applicant no.5 (husband) is concerned, the allegations against him are specific and are duly supported by the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. Hence, prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against applicant no.5.

7. Heard rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the complaint and the accompanying documents clearly indicates that the complainant has sought to implicate the entire family of her husband, including applicant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are mother-in-law, Father-in-law, Nand and Devar respectively. It appears to be a classic case of over-implication with intention to exert undue pressure on the husband by roping in his entire family.

9. From the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it emerges that a prima facie case is made out against applicant no.5, the husband of the victim. Therefore, the prayer for quashing of proceedings against him is liable to be rejected.

10. Accordingly, the instant application qua applicant no.5-Arvind Kumar (husband) is DISMISSED.

11. However, on careful examination of the record, this Court finds force in the submissions made on behalf of applicant nos. 1 to 4. The allegations against them are vague, general, and lacking in specific details. Even the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to them.

12. 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."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if the contents of the complaint case/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 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

14. 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.

15. 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:-

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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. 1 to 4. The ration 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.

19. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicant nos. 1 to 4, who are family members of husband of O.P. no.2, hence, following the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application qua applicant nos. 1 to 4 is hereby ALLOWED and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2010 (Smt. Lata vs. Arvind Kumar and others) in which summoning order dated 16.05.2011 has been passed, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Soron, District Kanshiram Nagar, pending in the court of CJM, Kasganj, so far it relates to applicant nos. 1 to 4 are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

Bhanu