Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Tiwari And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155986
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16839 of 2020
Jitendra Tiwari And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ankur Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Hiralal
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.06.2020 and cognizance order dated 14.07.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.4734 of 2020m arising out of Case Crime No.08 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mugalsarai, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
4. The dispute pertains to matrimonial. Applicant No.1 is husband and applicant Nos.2 to 5 are in-laws of opposite party No.2. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.10.2023, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. As per report of Mediation and Conciliation dated 20.01.2024, mediation completed and no agreement between the parties.
5. As per FIR version, applicant no.1 (husband) and his family members have tortured and harassed the opposite party no.2 for demand of dowry. The applicant no.1 namely Jitendra Tiwari has solemnized the second marriage with the opposite party No.2 on 21.06.2018. It is further alleged in the FIR that the first wife of the applicant no.1 namely Shilpi Tiwari expired prior to the second marriage. After marriage with applicant no. 1, two daughters were born. It is alleged in the FIR that from the beginning husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, elder brother-in-law, sister-in-law used to torture the opposite party no. 2 physically & mentally for demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. Present application has been filed on behalf of husband and in-laws of opposite party n. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Counsel for the applicant by way of supplementary affidavit filed order dated 19.12.2024 passed in 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding wherein Principal Judge Family Court has observed that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the applicant no. 1 during the life of the first wife, as such, opposite party no. 2 is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The submission of the counsel for the applicant that as per finding of Principal Judge Family Court, opposite party no. 2 was not legally wedded wife, therefore, present FIR/complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that considering the material evidences and allegations against the applicants on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. On perusal of F.I.R. and other material evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials on record against the applicants, the criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court. There is no illegality in the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and instant 482 Cr.P.C. application is liable to be dismissed. Further, submitted that the present application is not supported by evidence collected by I.O. I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants and during investigation recorded statement of informant, father of the informant and mother of the informant but instant application has not been supported by any evidence collected by I.O. On that account alone, present application should be dismissed. The statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation specified specific role of each of the applicants and, prima facie, offence under alleged sections is made out.
8. Considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the perusal of the record, prima facie, this Court finds that instant application is not supported by material evidence collected by I.O., which is the necessary evidence to decide the case. The contents of FIR, prima facie, disclose offence against each of the applicants with regard to demand of dowry, mental and physical torture. The Apex Court by various judgments held that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court should avoid mini-trial. Record reveals that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of applicant no. 1 and after marriage they continuously demanded dowry and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, applicants continuously pressurized the informant for the dowry and tortured her physically and mentally. Present application does not contain evidence collected while investigation, the contents of FIR disclose, prima facie, offence under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No interference is warranted.
9. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283,, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 3, 2025
Mini
