Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024A482/2999/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a dowry-related complaint case and summoning order against four applicants. The court issued notice to opposite party no.2, sought counter affidavits, listed the matter, and stayed the complaint proceedings till the next date.

What did the court decide?

Stay of proceedings in Complaint Case No.2865 of 2023 against applicants till next date; notice issued to opposite party no.2.

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others vs State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2999 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Ul Qayuim,Ajeet Pratap Singh,Syed Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Zia Ul Qayuim, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Vinay Kumar (as per prosecution Vinay Kumar Saxena), Anunay (as per prosecution Anunay Saxena), Poonam (as per prosecution Poonam Saxena) and Aishwarya (as per prosecution Aishwarya Saxena) with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings of Complaint Case No.2865 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich as well as to quash the impugned summoning order dated dated 03.07.2023 passed in the aforesaid case by learned court of Civil Judge / F.T.C., Bahraich.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in a false, frivolous and vexatious case by the opposite party no.2 in connivance with her family members after a well orchestrated and concerted design to malign and destabilize the clean and impeccable image of the applicants solely with the objective to harass and humiliate the applicants and their family members with ulterior motive.

¶8

He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of opposite party no.2 was fixed with the applicant no.2, wherein opposite party no.2 was informed by the applicants that the applicant no.2 is a law graduate and is running a franchise of Mahindra Coaching. On 27.03.2022, the applicants came to the house of opposite party no.2 in Bahraich District and in furtherance of which they had agreed to accept opposite party no.2 as her future daughter-in-law wherein the expenditure of marriage alongwith customary rituals were mutually discussed and agreed upon by both the parties.

¶9

He further submits that on 03.05.2022, ring ceremony was performed from La Safe Hotel in Kasganj District wherein the expenses of the ceremony were mutually agreed to be borne by both the parties and gifts were exchanged in furtherance of which few transaction were made by opposite party no.2 and her father into the bank account of applicant no.2. He further submits that 15 days prior to the date of solemnization of marriage i.e. 09.12.2022, the applicants demanded a Maruti Dezire Car and Rs.8,00,000/- lakhs in cash as a demand of dowry and on 27.12.2022, the applicants came to the house of opposite party no.2 and reiterated their demand of dowry and went away by humiliating the father of opposite party no.2 and the applicants are not returning back the money and gifts given by the opposite party no.2 and her father and are seeking time to return the same.

¶10

He further submits that the opposite party no.2 preferred an application for lodging of the F.I.R. before the jurisdictional police station but the same was not lodged and in furtherance of which the opposite party no.2 preferred an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich through Registered Post on 20.02.2023 and the same went unheard, she moved a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶11

He further submits that on 24.01.2023, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging the above facts and thereafter the statements of opposite party no.2 and her father were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. wherein general and sweeping allegations have been made against all the applicants in a frivolous and vexatious manner.

¶12

He further submits that the learned Magistrate without considering the fact and evidence on record, had summoned the applicants in a cursory manner under Sections 420, 406, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submits that only ring ceremony has been solemnized, therefore, Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted against the applicants. The learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants without application of judicial mind as the impugned summoning order is totally illegal and arbitrary. Even though other Sections of I.P.C. are also not attracted and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is also not attracted against the applicants. Thus, interim relief was prayed.

¶13

The matter requires consideration on the fact and law both.

¶14

Learned A.G.A.-I has accepted notice on behalf of the State i.e.

¶15

opposite party no.1.

¶16

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.

¶17

Steps in this regard be taken within a week from today.

¶18

Learned A.G.A.-I as well as opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

Put up this case on 19.07.2024.

¶20

Till the next date of listing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.2865 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich shall remain stayed in respect of the applicants.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Saurabh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sarvjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Mohd Rehan @ Rehan vs Special A.C.J.M (C.B.I)(a.P) Lko. and Another

Farheen and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Shantanu Singh @ Shanu and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Chandra Bhan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another