Partly allowed

Atul Tripathi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023A482/2007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that proceedings in a dowry death/cruelty case filed against applicants 4 to 7, who were in-laws with no specific allegations, were quashed. The court found the case was instituted with mala fide intention to harass, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing when general omnibus allegations are made against relatives without material evidence.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of the present case are quashed in respect of applicant nos. 4 to 7 only.

Atul Tripathi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173739

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2007 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Tripathi And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 12.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 787 of 2018 [New No. 1121 of 2018] (Reena Vs. Atul Tripathi and Others) , under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj, Farrukhabad.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no.2 was married the applicant no.1 on 20.02.2014, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry from the opposite party no.2 and for non-fulfillment of the same, they started torturing and maltreating her and subjected her to cruelty and turned her out of her matrimonial home.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that instant application under Section 482 CrPC on behalf of the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that applicant nos. 4 & 5 are the sisters-in-law, whereas applicant nos. 6 & 7 are the brothers-in-law of opposite party no.2 and no specific allegation has been made against them rather general, vague and omnibus allegations, just to drag them in criminal court has been alleged. As a matter of fact, they have no concern whatsoever with the day to day affairs between husband and wife and they have been falsely roped in the instant case only on account of being the family members of applicant no.1.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted

¶12

that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant nos. 4 to 7 and the present criminal case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, entire proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie, offence is clearly made out against applicant nos. 4 to 7.

¶14

From the material collected during the course of investigation also, it is evident that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against applicant nos. 4 to 7, who are sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and as such, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through tribulations of a trial, that is, general, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be manifest in a situation, where the relatives of the victim's husband are forced to undergo trial in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

¶15

In view of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Taramani Parak Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the entire proceedings of the present case are hereby quashed in respect of the applicant nos. 4 to 7 only.

¶16

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly partly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 28.8.2023 Nadim

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Tripathi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Tripathi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Bharti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Kayum Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shadab Qamar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobha Tyagi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer Singh @ Body and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others