Court allowed application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against applicants (witnesses/relatives) where allegations were bald, vague, and lacked disclosure of active involvement, citing Supreme Court precedents on dowry cases.
Proceedings of Case No. 156 of 2010 are hereby quashed qua the applicants no. 6 to 10.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66306
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
Applicant :- Dr. Vishwa Prakash Arya And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.P. Singh Bishen,Bharat Singh Pankaj,Shamsher Singh,Sharad Nandan Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Maneesh Pandey,Manish Kumar Pandey,Pradeep Raje,Puneet Kumar Verma,Raj Kumar,Ramakant Sahu,Shambhu Shanker,Syed Aftab Ahmad,V.K. Upadhyay
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
"to quash the criminal proceeding in Case No. 156 of 2010 (Dr. V.P. Arya Versus State of U.P. and others) U/s 498A, 323, 504 of the I.P.C. and 3/4
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate IInd, Lucknow alongwith cognizance order dated 08/02/2010 and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and properr in the circumstances of the case as otherwise, applicant be put to irreperable loss, grave sufferig, great hardship, heavy injury and serious loss."
"This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding of criminal case No. 156 of 2010 arising out of Crime No. 513 of 2010 (Dr. V. P. Arya v State of U.P. & others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of the II-Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and perused the record.
The learned counsel for the applicants does not press the petition, so far as applicant nos. 1 to 5 are concerned.
It was also submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 6 is the Mamia Sasur (maternal uncle-in-law) and is living permanently at Jabalpur. The applicant nos. 7 and 9 are the sisters of the husband of the prosecutrix and the applicant nos. 8 & 10 are respectively their husbands, who are living separately at distant places. None of these applicants has any concern with the alleged dowry nor there was any occasion for them to assault the prosecutrix or assist her husband and his family members.
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the learned AGA. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate appeared for the respondent no.2 and received notice.
Counter affidavit if any may be filed within four weeks and rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing no coercive process shall be issued and executed against the applicant nos. 6 to 10 namely Dr. Rampal, Smt. Seema Gautam, APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
Rakesh Gautam, Smt. Gayatri Singh "Pankaj" and Bharat Singh "Pankaj" in the aforesaid case."
opposite party no. 2 and at the time of lodging the FIR dated 10.04.2010 was living happily with her husband applicant no. 8/Rakesh Gautam at House No. G-201 Rajya Sampatti Vibhag Colony Mantri Awas Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Applicant No. 9/Smt. Gayatri Singh "Pankaj" is also nanad and at relevant point of time was living at House No. 6/328/1, Super H.I.G. Yojana-3, Awas Vikas Colony, Jhunsi, Allahabad, with her husband applicant no. 10/Bharat Singh "Pankaj" and as such all these persons were not involved in the crime as alleged in the FIR dated 10.04.2010 lodged by the opposite party no 2, the basis of the pending criminal proceedings.
" तत्प्ቐात्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीएवं्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेभाईकीशि�्ቌावविववाहदीदीएवंजीजा्ቛ ाराविकयागयाजो विक्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकीमाताविपताकेबादएकमा्ቔ अशिभभावकहैं।्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकीविवधि&वत�ादी विदनांक 22.5.2006 कोडा०वी . पी . आया* पु्ቔ्ቦ ीएस . पी . आया* विनवासी 554/159/3 घ भीमनगर , ! जनतागኚᮚस* इण्टरकालेजकेपीछे ! आलमबागलखनउकेसा�सम्प्ቐ हुई। �ादीमें्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेभाईत�ादीदीएवंजीजाअपनेसामኚᮄय* केअनुसारसामानत�ानगद दहेजकेरूपमेंमांगकेअनुरूपविदयागयाहै।�ादीकेपूव* बातचीतकेसमयडा०एस०पी० आया* ! ससुर ! दीपकुमारआया* ! जेठ ! भरतिሺसहपंकज ! बड़ाननदोई ! राके�कुमारगौतम ! ननदोई ! डा०रामपाल ! मामाससुर ! ारा�ादीमेंपांचलाखरूपयेनगदत�ा 5 लाखरूपये केविवशिभ्ቐ सामनएववैगनआरगाड़ीकीमांगकीगयी।्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेभाईएवंजीजानेइतना सबकुछदेपानेमेंअसम�*ताव्य्ሹ कीत�ाविनवेदनविकयाविकवैगनआरगाड़ीनहींदेपायेंगे। इसके बादवकसीतरहउससमयमि ेरे ससुर , पधतएवि ं अन्यपररजनमानगयि , वकि न्तु �ादीक तरु न्तबाद ाቕ�नीकኌ े अपने पधतकि े घरआने के बादसे हीपधतडा०वि वि का�आया , ससरु ीएस०पी०आया , साससुवमि ्ቔ ा , जठे ी दीपकुमारआया , जठानीे ीमतीकसु ुमा , बड़ाननदोई ीभरतिसहपሺ कजं , बड़ीननद धतभाि ! पारूल !, छोटे ननदोई ीराके�कुमार गौतम , छोटीननदसीमात�ामामाडा०रामपाल ारायहकहकरसमय - समयपरदहेजकी
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
मागकोलं करमारपीटवे तावडि ़तकरना�रु ू करवदयागयावि कदहि ेजके रूपमें बहुतहीकम सामानवरूपयावदया।ि अपनीसामኚᮄय* केबाहरजाकरभीविदयाजबविक्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेभाईएवं जीजानेवैगनआरगाड़ीकोछोड़करकरकेमांगकेअनुरूपसामानवरूपयाअपनीसामኚᮄय* केबाहरजाकरभीविदया।�ादीकेबादसेही्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेपधितएवंउ्ሹ कशि�तलोगदहेजको लेकरतानादेतेरहते�ेत�ारिरश्तेदारीआविदमेंभीकहींआनेजानेनहींदेते�ेत�ा्ቚ ाቕኌ�नी केभाईत�ादीदीएवंजीजाकेआनेपरउनसेअभ्ቖ व्यवहारकरते�े , उसकेबादसेही ाቕኌ�नीकेपधितएवंउ्ሹ कशि�तलोगों्ቛ ारा्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीपरदबावबनायाजानेलगाविकडा० साहब ! पधित ! की्ቇ ीविनकबनवानेहेतुपांचलाखरूपयेत�ाएकवैगनआरगाड़ीअपनेभाई त�ाजीजासेविदलवाओनहींतोतुम्हेइसघरमेंनहींरहनेविदयाजायेगा , लेविकनइतनीसारी ताड़नाकेबादभी्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीने्ቚ धितवादनहींविकया।्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेपधितने 2/7 रजनीखंड , आशि�यनामें्ቇ ीविनकभीबनवायीजिजसमें्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीकेभाईवजीजानेएकलाखरूपयेनगद विदनांक 15.2.07 कोत�ा 80 हजारएकमुश्त्ቚ ाቕኌ�नीनेअपनीबचतोंसेअपनेपधितको 30.10.2008 को 4 विदया। वदनाि कं ाቕ�नीकाኌ माहकाब्ሴ ाजोवकरातएकबजि े तकठीक �ा , सुबहसन्दहजनकपरे रቝि Q�धኌ तयोि ं में मृतपायागयाजबवकि ाቕ�नीनኌ े अपने ब कोवकसीि अन्यडाक्टरकोवदखानि े के ललयि े कहातो ाቕ�नीकኌ े पधति , जठे , सास , बड़े वछोटे ननदोई " एवं ननदों्ቛ ाराजUडि ़कवदयागया।ि
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Mohit Singh/-
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2051 of 2010
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed against specific applicants due to bald and vague allegations under Sections 498-A and 498-B IPC.
Whether the allegations against applicants no. 6 to 10 constitute abuse of process of law warranting quashing of proceedings.
Whether lack of active involvement and specific disclosure justifies allowing the application under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State of U.P. & AnrReferred¶35
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State of U.P. & Anr : (2012) 10 SCC 741 · Who else cites this
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors vs State of Bihar & OrsReferred¶35
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors: (2022) 6 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dr. Vishwa Prakash Arya
S.P. Arya
Dr. Rampal
Smt. Seema Gautam
Smt. Gayatri Singh
State of U.P.
Saurabh Lavania
Mohit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
