Allahabad High Court
Aditya Kumar @ Guddu And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 8 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62098
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7006 of 2022
Aditya Kumar @ Guddu And Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Srees Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Amarjeet Singh, Dhruvendra Kumar Singh, Pradyumn Shukla, Sunil Kumar, Vivek Singh
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been filed with the following prayer:
"I. Pass an order or direction thereby quashing of the impugned summoning dated 16.08.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge/ Junior Division/F.T.C. Crime against women, district Unnao, in complaint case no.255 of 2021, under section 498-A 323, 504, I.P.C., and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Makhi, district unnao- parties Ashwani versus Aditya Kumar and others as well as for quashing of the entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case, pending in the court of Learned Civil Judge/Junior Division/ F.T.C. Crime against women, district Unnao; and
II. Pass any other order or direction to prevent such abuse of the process or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, by exercising the powers conferred on this Hon'ble Court under section 482, Cr.P.C."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 09.02.2020 according to Hindu Customs. The opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants on 30.06.2021 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao which was treated as a complaint case. In the said application, the allegation of physical violence has been leveled.
4. In the present case, the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. Thereafter, the Subordinate Court has issued summons against the applicants. It has been submitted that the Court below while issuing the summons has not applied its mind as the family members of the applicant no.1 have also been implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the applicant no.1 is husband, whereas, applicant nos.2 & 3 are father & mother-in-law, applicant nos.4,5,6,7,8 are the brother and sister-in-laws. He has submitted that the married sister-in-laws (nanand) i.e. applicant nos.10 & 11 have also been included and applicant no.12 who is nephew of applicant no.1 has also been made accused. It has been submitted that after bare perusal of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is evident that no offence is made out against the family members of the applicant no.1.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that a bare perusal of statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. indicates that the accused applicants have been named in the present case, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no material available on record to proceed against them.
6. It has also been submitted that the summons have been issued after due consideration of the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.
7. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SCC 181. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:
"23. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to prolong the controversy. The facts in this matter on this aspect was although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.
24. 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 allegation 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 cognisance 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."
8. He has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:
"17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long_term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
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."
9. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, I find that the applicant no.1 is the husband, whereas, applicant nos.2 & 3 are father & mother-in-law, applicant nos.4,5,6,7,8 are the brother and sister-in-laws. They all belong to the same family tree and there is allegation of demand of dowry as well as harassment.
10. The case of applicant nos.10-12 finds support from the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. (supra) as they are relative and living in other village. Applicant no.10 & 11 are married sisters of the applicant no.1 (husband), therefore, it cannot be said that they committed any offence and it is clear that they have been implicated only for the reason that they are relative of the applicant no.1.
11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in respect of applicant nos.10, 11 & 12 and the entire proceeding of complaint case no.255 of 2021, under section 498-A 323, 504, I.P.C., and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station- Makhi, district- Unnao are hereby quashed in respect of applicant nos.10, 11 & 12. However, the proceeding shall go on against the applicant nos.1 to 9.
12. The application filed by applicant nos.1 to 9 is hereby rejected.
13. However, it is also open to the applicant nos.1 to 9 to apply for bail before the trial court within 30 days from today in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021
14. In case, the applicants apply for bail before the trial court within 30 days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
October 8, 2025
V. Sinha
