Viri Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Viri Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147074
 
AFR
 
RESERVED
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6782 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Viri Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Datta Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
 

 

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Applicants for quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 24.5.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.22 of 2017, Smt. Anju Vs. Anil Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2-complainant submits that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit and the matter may be heard on merits. The opportunity of filing counter affidavit is hereby closed.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is being heard.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for Applicants that Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant. The Applicants are summoned by order dated 11.9.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of complaint would go to show that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against Applicants, who are family members of husband. One of the allegation in the complaint is that on 21.3.2016, applicants along with husband of opposite party no.2 have demanded dowry of Rs.5 lacs and have abused the opposite party no.2. Such an incident has not been substantiated in the statement of the complaint, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as in the aforesaid statement general allegation with regard to demand of dowry has been made. Specific allegation of 21.3.2016 (in statement of complainant) pertains to assault being made however, there is no injury report on record.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Applicants that prior to filing of aforesaid complaint, the husband of opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Agra on 29.3.2016 against the conduct of the wife on the fact that opposite party no.2 has voluntarily left the home on 21.3.2016. After the aforesaid complaint dated 29.3.2016, the matter was referred to the Family Conciliation Centre where the complainant had filed an application dated 26.4.2016 (which is at page 41 of the paper book) wherein there is no allegation against the Applicants and the sole allegation is against the husband. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the criminal proceedings against the Applicants are bad in law.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for Applicants and submits that the Applicants are not permitting the complainant-opposite party no.2 to reside in the matrimonial home.

8. On a query being made to learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 with regard to the document at page 41 of the paper book, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the aforesaid application is made before the Family Conciliation Centre by the complainant. There are serious allegation with regard to demand of dowry in the complaint and statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and as such the present application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submits that in the present case opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra as Complaint Case No.22 of 2017 with the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with accused Anil Kumar on 03.03.2014 and her father has given sufficient dowry in his capacity, but in-laws were not satisfied with the same and demanded additional dowry, in the shape of Rs.5 lacs cash and four wheeler vehicle, in this regard they used to torture and harass her and given threats for life and ultimately on 23.8.2015 they have outsted wife from the house after beating her. After registration of complaint, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra recorded the statement of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which she has fully supported the version of complaint and also recorded the statements of witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Rajendra Singh and P.W.2-Kamlesh Kumari under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which they have also supported the version of complaint. Thereafter, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra after considering each and every aspect of the matter has rightly summoned the present applicants and one other accused, namely, Anil Kumar for facing trial under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 11.9.2017.

10. The opposite party no.2-wife has preferred a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 23.1.2017, the same was registered as Complaint Case. No 22 of 2017 (Smt Anju Vs. Anil Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. As per allegation in the above-mentioned complaint preferred by opposite party No. 2-wife against husband-Anil Kumar, Applicant no.1-father-in-law and Applicant no.2-mother-in-law, the marriage between opposite party no. 2 and husband was solemnised on 3.3.2014 according to hindu rites. It is alleged that in the marriage Rs.18 lakhs cash and Rs.2 lakh furniture were given at the time of marriage. It is also alleged in the complaint that after marriage when the opposite party no.2 reached her matrimonial home then mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and husband used to beat opposite party no.2 and demanded Rs.5 lakhs and four wheeler car so that opposite party no.2 live happily at matrimonial home. On 3.1.2015, son was born out of matrimonial accord. Even after the child was born out of marriage, however, behaviour of husband and his family members did not improve and they used to threaten opposite party no.2 to not inform wife’s family members of misbehaviour by husband and his family members. In February 2016, after marriage of sister of opposite party no 2, when opposite party no.2 went to her parents home and informed about misbehaviour of husband and his family members, thereafter father of opposite party no.2 asked the husband about the complaint made by opposite party no. 2. The husband started abusing the father of opposite party no.2 and stated that till the time, demand of dowry is not fulfilled, opposite party no 2 would be harassed. When the father of opposite party no. 2 talked to Applicant no. 1, he started abusing. The sister-in-law and brother-in-law started harassing and on their enticement, Applicants along with husband started harassing the opposite party 2 for dowry.

12. It is also alleged in the complaint that Applicants along with husband used to assault the opposite party No. 2 for dowry and thereafter admitted the opposite party No.2 to the hospital. Thereafter, the conciliation proceedings were held between the parties and opposite party no. 2 started living with husband and his family members and for 14 to 15 days there was normalcy in the relationship, however, sister-in-law and brother-in-law came to house of husband and started abusing and assaulted and demanded ₹ 5 lakh and one car as dowry. The said incident is of March 2016. On 21.3.2016 demand was made for dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and car by husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of sister-in-law and has abused and stated that if demand of dowry is not fulfilled, opposite party no.2 will not be permitted to enter the matrimonial home. It is alleged that on 7.7.2017 complaint was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra for lodging of First Information Report.

13. The court concerned thereafter has recorded statement of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid statement, it has been alleged that marriage took place on 3.3.2014 and at the time of marriage, father of opposite party No.2 has given ₹ 18 lakh cash and other items, however, husband and his family members were not satisfied and were demanding additional dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and four wheeler car. It is also stated in aforesaid statement that husband is not ready to keep the wife unless demand is not fulfilled and that the wife is living at her parent’s home for one and half years along with child. It is also alleged that on 21.3.2014 opposite party no.2 has been assaulted and has been thrown out of the matrimonial home.

14. The court concerned thereafter has recorded the statement of Rajendra Singh (father of opposite party no. 2, wife) under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said witness has stated that complainant is his daughter and she was married on 3.3.2014 in accordance with hindu rites with Anil Kumar (Husband). It is stated that at the time of marriage a sum of ₹ 20 lakh was expended. After the marriage, husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law used to taunt the complainant for less dowry and demanded ₹ 5 lakhs and four wheeler car otherwise will not keep the complainant at home. During the subsistence of marriage on 3.1.2015 one son was born out of marriage, however, no change in the behaviour of in-laws and husband was found. In February 2016, when the complainant came back to house of witness for the purpose of marriage of younger sister of complainant then all the aforesaid incident were informed to Rajendra Singh. On 2.3.2016 demand for ₹ 5 lakhs and one car was made by accused persons and have assaulted and have thrown the complainant out of the house and threatened of divorce.

15. Thereafter the statement of Smt. Kamlesh Kumar being mother of complainant was recorded. The said witness has stated that the complainant is her daughter and she was married on 3.3.2014 in accordance with hindu rites with Anil Kumar (Husband). After the marriage, husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law used to taunt the complainant for less dowry and demanded ₹ 5 lakhs and four wheeler otherwise will not keep the complainant at home. In February 2016, when the complainant came back to the house of witness for the purpose of marriage of younger sister of complainant then all the aforesaid incident were informed to Rajendra Singh. On 2.3.2016 demand for ₹ 5 lakhs and one car was made by accused persons and have assaulted and thrown the complainant out of the house.

16. A bare perusal of complaint would go to show that complaint was preferred on 23.1.2017 and the same was registered as Complaint Case No. 22 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Vs Anil Kumar and others). A perusal of para-4 of the aforesaid complaint would go to show that on 7.1.2017 at the first time complaint was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, however, no action was taken. Applicants in paragraph 6 of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has specifically alleged that husband on 29.3.2016 has moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra disclosing that present complainant-opposite party no.2 was continuously creating nuisance in the matrimonial home and is threatening the Applicants to implicate in a false case.

17. When the opposite party no.2 came to know about the aforesaid application dated 29.3.2016 of husband, opposite party no.2 is said to have preferred an application dated 26.4.2016 before the Superintendent of Police, Agra (Nodal Officer Parivar Paramarsh Kendra). The aforesaid application dated 26.4.2016 is filed along with present application at page 41 of paper book. A perusal of aforesaid application dated 26.4.2016 of opposite party No. 2 would go to show that no allegation has been made against present Applicants and all the allegations (in application dated 26.4.2016) are directed against husband of complainant. It is further to be noted that in complaint filed by complainant before the court concerned the last allegation is of 21.3.2016. The application dated 26.4.2016 has not been denied by counsel for opposite party no.2. In the application dated 26.4.2016, there is no allegation against Applicants and it has not been explained by counsel for opposite party no. 2 as to why subsequent complaint has been filed before the court concerned, allegations have been made against the present Applicants although the same were not in the application dated 26.4.2016 before police authorities.

18. It is further to be noted that in affidavit filed along with application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in para 13, it has been specifically stated that Applicants have not assaulted opposite party no. 2 nor have demanded dowry and it has been further alleged that complaint has been filed to implicate the entire family members for fulfilling malafide intentions of complainant of her encroaching upon the money of the family of Applicants. It has also been alleged in the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that general role has been assigned to Applicants and that no offence is made out against Applicants.

19. It is to be seen that Applicants are prosecuted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 498A of Indian Penal Code provides penal consequences where the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty. The cruelty has been defined in the explanation appended to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. There are two explanations provided under the aforesaid provision for interpretation of the word “cruelty” provided under the aforesaid section. The explanation (a) provides that the “cruelty” would mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). The explanation (b) provides cruelty would mean harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure of her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

20. The provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code prescribes as under :-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means–

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

21. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Applicants have offered any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of woman. The counsel for opposite party no. 2 has neither relied upon any grave injury suffered by opposite party no. 2 nor has relied upon any medical report in this respect. It is not in dispute between the parties that no medical practitioner was examined in support of complaint before the court concerned. It is not alleged in the complaint nor any material circumstances have been shown on behalf of opposite parties that the conduct of Applicants was of such a nature as is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.

22. It is further to be noted that as per prosecution case, it is alleged that the wife was being subjected to harassment by Applicants and other family members and demanding amount to meet unlawful demand. For the purpose of prosecution under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, it is imperative that the woman should be subjected to cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband of a woman. As per explanation (b) of the aforesaid section, it is imperative that the harassment of woman should be with a view of coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to the woman to meet such demand.

23. A perusal of complaint would go to show that general and omnibus allegations have been made against family members of husband with regard to demand of dowry. Although in complaint, it has been stated that husband and his family members were demanding dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and a four wheeler, however, neither the date and nor the time of alleged demand has been disclosed in the complaint. In respect of incident dated 21.3.2016, it is alleged that husband and family members were demanding ₹ 5 lakh and car, however, a perusal of the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C would go to show that in respect of alleged incident of 21.3.2016, only allegation of assault has been made and no allegations have been made in the aforesaid statement with regard to demand of dowry. The statement of complainant also does not disclose the details of harassment which has been incurred by Applicants to the wife-complainant in respect of demand for dowry.

24. Criminal law is set in motion by lodging of First Information Report or Complaint. The investigation/prosecution is carried upon to find the truth in allegations. Setting in motion criminal law entails consequences including curtailing of liberty of individual. The criminal law machinery is based on the nature of allegations and the evidence found during investigation/prosecution/enquiry. It is important for prosecution to provide precise details of allegations and evidence to support the prosecution case.

25. Vague, ambiguous and omnibus allegations can violate the right of accused to process of law and fair trial. It is fundamental principle of law that accused be subjected to fair trial. Vague allegation has significant effect on defence by creating uncertainty. Without specific details and evidence, the defence of accused may be prejudiced or the accused may not be able to effectively defend himself.

26. Vague allegation can affect the defence of accused by making it difficult to formulate a targeted defence strategy. Without clear specifics or evidence to address, accused may struggle to refute the allegations or present a compelling counter argument. Lawyers/Advocates typically rely on specific information to prepare their case, such as dates, time, location, and witnesses. Vague allegations lack these crucial details, leaving the defence to speculate or generalize their response, which can weaken their defence in court. The mere suggestion of wrong doing, without substantiation, can lead to stigma and prejudice against the accused, making it harder for them to receive a fair trial. Moreover, vague allegations may prolong legal proceedings as the defence attempts to gather more information to understand the accusations fully.

27. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Supreme Court has has laid down the categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of the categories pointed out in the said judgement is stated in para 102 (5) which is quoted herein below :

“(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”

28. In law, prudent person is a hypothetical person who in the facts and circumstances would conduct in a reasonable, just and fair manner. In the context of vague allegations at the stage of cognizance or summoning of accused, it is to be examined whether on the basis of the allegations in the complaint or the first information report and the evidence collected during investigation it can be said that a prudent person would come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The insufficiency of ground for proceedings against an accused may also arise when material particulars and details in respect of the alleged offence are absent in prosecution case. The sufficiency of material against an accused is a condition precedent for proceedings against an accused.

29. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 the Supreme Court has laid emphasis that the complaint must contain material to enable the court to make up mind for issuing process.

“5. Section 203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without even issuing a process. It uses the words “after considering” and “the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding”. These words suggest that the Magistrate has to apply his mind to a complaint at the initial stage itself and see whether a case is made out against the accused persons before issuing process to them on the basis of the complaint. For applying his mind and forming an opinion as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, a complaint must make out a prima facie case to proceed. This, in other words, means that a complaint must contain material to enable the Magistrate to make up his mind for issuing process. If this were not the requirement, consequences could be far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue process in every case, the burden of work before the Magistrate as well as the harassment caused to the respondents to whom process is issued would be tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code starts with the words “if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. The words “sufficient ground for proceeding” again suggest that ground should be made out in the complaint for proceeding against the respondent. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the process the Magistrate is required to see only the allegations in the complaint and where allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence against a person, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.”

30. The question therefore arises what is the material which is required to be before the court to issue process under criminal law. The material facts and particulars to constitute an offence are required to be shown by prosecution before the court proceeds to issue the process. The material facts and particulars are those facts which essentially would be required to constitute an offence. These facts would also include such facts which the law recognises as important facts for proceeding with the trial of the case. These facts are also necessary to bring fairness in the process of trial. In this respect, Sections 212 and 213 of Cr.P.C. (Section 235 & 236 BNSS) also recognises that the charge shall contain particulars of time and place of offence and the particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed.

31. The rule of law requires that accused is visited with specific allegations in criminal prosecution. Specific allegation under criminal law would require that date, time and place of alleged offence is specified (more particularly when the complainant is the victim having personal knowledge), the details of person against whom the offence is committed or the thing in respect of which the offence was committed. The allegations should also describe the manner in which the offence is committed. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the need for specific and proper allegation in criminal law. In this reference para 9 of the Neelu Chopra Judgement (Supra) is quoted herein below :

“9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. 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 committing of that offence.”

32. In Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the Supreme Court has laid emphasis that general and sweeping allegation without specific instance is an abuse of process of court. In this reference para 25 of the Achin Gupta (Supra) is quoted herebelow :-

“25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute”

33. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others Vs State of Telangana & Another 2024 INSC 953, the Supreme Court has observed that vague allegation may lead to misuse of legal process. In this respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted herein below:-

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

28. The inclusion of Section 498 of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498 of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498 the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”

34. A bare perusal of complaint and statement of opposite party no 2 would go to show that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against Applicants. It has not been disclosed in complaint or in statement of opposite party no.2 as to role assigned to Applicants. The complainant or statement of opposite party no.2 before the trial court does not specify the details of harassment including the date and time when the same is meted out to the opposite party no.2-wife. Even the date of demand of dowry and the manner in which demand for dowry is made is not stated. In the statement of opposite party no.2, general and vague allegation with regard to demand of dowry are made. It is further to be noted that although the complainant states that on 21.3.2016 accused persons including Applicants have demanded dowry of ₹ 5 lakhs and four-wheeler car, however, the aforesaid allegation in complaint has not been supported in the statement of opposite party no 2 before the court concerned.

35. Under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, receiving and giving of dowry is punishable offence. It is alleged in the complaint that cash and other items were given to accused person at time of marriage, however, no details has been given as to person to whom the aforesaid cash and other items were given and whether the same were in the nature of gifts in the marriage or in the nature of dowry. The vague and omnibus allegations have been made in the complaint with regard to giving of dowry in the marriage. Under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act even giving dowry is an offence, however, Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prohibits prosecution of a person who is giving dowry for offence under this Act on the basis of statement made by him. The aforesaid provision has resulted that a person who is taking dowry is being prosecuted, however, a person who is giving dowry is barred by law from being prosecuted nor any action is being taken against them. The law under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act declares the person giving dowry as offender however, bars prosecution under Section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act.

36. It is admitted to complainant and her father that dowry was given at the time of marriage to the tune of Rs. 18 lakhs in cash, the court concerned summoned the Applicants on the basis of statements of complainant and her father who admit being involved in giving of dowry [in effect has violated the provisions of giving dowry under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act], then it was necessary that the court concerned while summoning the accused to seek corroborating material and circumstances in respect of taking of dowry by the Applicants. Mere bald allegation by a person, who is giving dowry (complainant) may not be sufficient for a prudent man to believe. In the present case, there is no corroborating material to demonstrate that the cash is given to Applicants as dowry at the time of marriage. Such bald allegation with regard to giving and taking of dowry by a person (complainant or his family members) who has violated the mandate of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sole circumstance to prosecute, as no prudent man can rely on the statement of the complainant (Who himself has violated the law) without there being corroborative material or circumstance. It is further to be noted that the date, place, time and the manner in which alleged dowry is said to have been given by complainant or his father has neither been stated in the complaint nor in the statement of complainant. The marriage took place on 3.3.2014 and the complaint has been filed on 21.1.2017, neither in the complaint nor in the statement of complainant it has been explained as to why offence of taking dowry was not reported in the year 2014 itself and why after three years such allegations have been raised against the applicants. The aforesaid is further more significant as in the above-mentioned application dated 26.4.2016 of opposite party no.2-complainant, the complainant has made no allegation with regard to harassment or demand of dowry or receiving of dowry against the Applicants. All the allegations in the application dated 26.4.2016 is directed against the husband and not against the Applicants. In view of aforesaid, general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against Applicants, (who are family members of husband) as such, the aforesaid allegations cannot be a ground for summoning the Applicants-accused under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

37. Insofar as the allegations with regard to demand of dowry in violation of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, in the statement of opposite party No. 2 except a general and bald allegations with regard to demand of dowry against entire family members of the husband, there is no specific allegation. Even in the statement of complainant, in respect of incident dated 21.3.2016, it is not alleged that on the aforesaid date any demand of dowry was made although in the complaint such allegation existed. Once the complainant in her statement before the court concerned has not supported the allegations in the complaint. In this respect, summoning order could not have been issued in respect of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, more particularly when it is not alleged that demand of dowry was made at the place where the parents of the complainant reside.

38. The Applicants has also been summoned under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The Applicants have put to challenge the summoning under the aforesaid sections on the ground that no offence is made out. The offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes that whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under Section 504 I.P.C. requires that there should be intentional insult and thereby giving provocation to any person intending or knowing that such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any offence. In the present case, there are no material circumstances to show that there was any intentional insult which would give provoction to the wife to cause any break of public peace or to commit any offence as such the material ingredient of offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is not made out from the prosecution case. Further, Section 506 provides punishment for offence of criminal intimidation.

39. The offence of criminal intimidation has been drescribed under Section 503 of Indian Penal Code and the same is quoted here in below :-

“503. Criminal intimidation.-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”

40. An act of criminal intimidation would occur when a person threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

41. A perusal of the statement of complainant before the court concerned under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code would go to show that there is no allegation of any threatening against the Applicants. Even complainant does not make any specific allegation against Applicants with regard to any threatening and using of abusive language. The complaint does not specify as to what was the language used by Applicants. Further the date, time and place of threatening by Applicants has also not been disclosed in the complaint. It is further to be noted that in above mentioned application dated 26.4.2016 of complainant also there exist no allegation against Applicants by the complainant. Even otherwise, allegation in the complaint do not constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The court concerned erred in issuing summons against Applicants under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

42. The Applicants have also been summoned under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code. Section 323 of Indian Penal Code provides for offence of causing hurt. The ‘Hurt’ has been defined under Section 319 of I.P.C. as whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. The complainant has specifically alleges that the accused has assaulted the complainant and have thrown her out of matrimonial. The statement of complainant before the court concerned alleges general, vague and omnibus allegation against the Applicants with regard to assault and there is no allegation in the complaint nor in the statement of complainant before court concerned of causing any body pain, disease or infirmity to complainant. The counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has not relied upon any medical report nor any doctor is shown to have been examined before the Court concerned with regard to any bodily pain, disease or infirmity. It is further been noted that in the above mentioned application dated 26.4.2016 of complainant also there exist no allegation against Applicants by the complainant in this respect.

43. In view of reasons stated hereinabove, the criminal proceedings against Applicants (namely Viri Singh and Smt. Kasturi Devi) including non bailable warrant order dated 24.5.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra is not tenable in law and as such, criminal proceedings (including Non-Bailable Warrant dated 24.5.2022) against Applicants in Complaint Case No.22 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Vs Anil Kumar and others) are hereby quashed in respect of applicant No.1-Viri Singh and applicant No.2-Smt. Kasturi Devi only. The application is allowed. However, the court concerned would be at liberty to proceed with the criminal proceedings against other accused persons, if any, in accordance with law.

Order Date:25.8.2025

Bhaskar