Mango Devi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7376 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mango Devi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92096
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21314 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Mango Devi And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava,Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jadu Nandan Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants in the Court today, is taken on record.

2. 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. 296 of 2013( Satyapal vs. Upendra and others) under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, including summoning order dated 02.06.2016.

3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of daughter of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with son of applicant no.1 on 22.04.2007. Due to matrimonial discord, daughter of opposite party no. 2 started living in her parental house. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. against the applicants on 26.03.2012 with the allegation that after committing atrocity upon her daughter, applicants with the intention to kill, made her disappear. Police after recording statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. submitted final report in favour of applicants on 07.11.2012. Aggrieved with the same opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition on 02.07.2013, which was treated as complaint case. After completion of enquiry and recording of statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has took cognizance and issued summoning order on 02.06.2016 against the applicants to face trial under section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. In the instant application cognizance order/summoning order dated 02.06.2016 as well as entire proceedings of complaint case has been assailed.

5. Perusal of record transpires that husband of daughter of opposite party no. 2 has not been made party to the instant application against whom the main allegation of committing atrocity and demand of dowry was made.

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 has been fully corroborated by the statements of complainant and witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 complaint and the evidence filed along with the application shows that the applicant no. 1 (mother-in-law), applicant No. 2 and 3 (brother-in-law), applicant no. 4 (wife of applicant no. 2) and applicant no. 5 (wife of applicant no. 3) are in-laws of daughter of opposite party no. 2 and allegation against them are vague and general in nature. The complaint fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicants were directly involved in any wrongdoing. Even in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no specific allegation has been made against applicants. Their case stands on different footing than the case of son-in-law of opposite party no. 2 who is husband of his daughter as the main allegation of demand of dowry is against him.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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:-

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it becomes imperative to assess the nature of the allegations levelled against applicants. 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.

15. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicants, who are in-laws of daughter 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.1 to 5 is hereby allowed and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 296 of 2013( Satyapal vs. Upendra and others) under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, including summoning order dated 02.06.2016, pending in the court of ACJM, Court No. 12, Agra are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 28.5.2025

Bhanu