Quashed

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. . and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023A482/28680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against remaining applicants in a dowry harassment case. Court quashed proceedings against father-in-law and mother-in-law due to vague, general allegations, relying on Apex Court precedents to prevent harassment through criminal trials.

What did the court decide?

QUASHED entire proceedings in complaint case against applicants nos. 2, 3, and 4.

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181020

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28680 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Mahrotra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghazala Bano Quadri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Maheep Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh,Ram Chandra Srivastava,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing summoning order dated 08.03.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1385 of 2019 (Smt. Tarang Arora Vs. Deepak Mehrotra and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Atarsuiya, District Allahabad (Prayagraj), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Allahabad.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 02.07.2014. Applicant no.2 is the father-in-law, applicant no.3 is the father-in-law (chachiya sasur) and applicant no.4 is mother-in-law (chachiya sas) of opposite party no. 2, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, 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 from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima

¶11

facie offence is clearly made out against applicants. 6. The instant application filed on behalf of applicant no.1 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 and the same survives only for applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶12

So far as the applicant nos.2 to 4 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that no specific allegation has been made against them rather general and vague 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 have been falsely roped in only on account of being the family members of her husband.

¶13

From the material collected during the course of enquiry also, it is evident that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against applicant nos.2 and 3, who are fathers-in-law (father of applicant no.1 and tau respectively), and applicant no.4 mother-inlaw (chachiya sas) 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.

¶14

In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parak Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2015) 11 SCC 260, Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Abhishek Vs. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2023 , the aforesaid proceedings in respect of the applicants are quashed.

¶15

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings stands quashed on behalf of remaining applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Subham

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. . and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 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

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Alias Santosh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secratery Home and Another

Tarun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanand and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another