Partly allowed

Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023A482/9005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court was called upon to quash matrimonial proceedings involving dowry allegations. The court refused the prayer for applicants 1, 2, and 4 due to a prima facie case of offence, but quashed proceedings against applicants 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 citing vague allegations.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against applicants 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were quashed; application of applicants 1, 2, and 4 was disposed of refusing quashing.

Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi and 7 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150807

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9005 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Dhananjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhlendra Pratap Singh,Deleep Kumar Chaudhari

¶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 14.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 67 of 2022 (Reena Devi Vs. Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi and others), under Sections 498A & 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Raipur, District Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of J.M.Ist, Chitrakoot.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 26.11.2020. Applicant no.2 and 4 are the parents-in-law of opposite party no.2, applicant no. 3 is the brother of her father-in-law, applicant nos. 5 and 7 are her brothers-in-law (devar and nandoi respectively) and applicant nos.6 and 8 are her sisters-in-law, however, after the said marriage, the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for nonfulfilment 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 facie, offence is clearly made out against applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶11

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 .

¶12

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.

¶14

However, in case, applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 appear before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 after hearing the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the instant application on behalf of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 stands disposed of.

¶16

So far as applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that there is no specific allegation of torturing and demanding dowry against them, rather general and vague allegations, just to drag them in criminal court has been alleged and they have no concern whatsoever with her day to day affairs and have been falsely roped in only on account of being the relatives of her husband.

¶17

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 and Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs.

¶18

State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the aforesaid proceedings in respect of applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are quashed.

¶19

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against applicant nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 only.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Subham

¶21

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

Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh @ Mohit Dwivedi and 7 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

Km. Ranu Gaur @ Shilpi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Singh Yadav Alias Vinod Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Upadahyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijaykant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another