Quashed

Narendra Kumar Mishra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2025A482/1263/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of impugned orders in a dowry harassment case (Sections 498-A IPC/3/4 Dowry Act) regarding distant relatives. Court quashed proceedings as allegations were vague and no active involvement was shown.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impugned order dated 22.2.2016 and summoning order dated 16.7.2014 quashed.

Narendra Kumar Mishra and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1263 of 2016

¶3

Narendra Kumar Mishra And Anr.

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And Anr.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Bux Rawat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Govt. Advocate, Akashdeep Shukla

¶9

Court No. - 23

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.2.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 and also for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 16.7.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No.921 of 2014 "Smt. Sangeeta Pandey Vs. Sanjay Pandey and others" under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Sangeeta Pandey filed a complaint alleging therein that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by her husband and his family members. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused being "Chachiya Sasur" and "Chachiya Saas" (paternal uncle and aunty - in laws) of the complainant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the petitioners are living separately and had no participation in the matrimonial life of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and omnibus in nature without any specific role attributed to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the marriage between opposite party no.2 and her husband has already been dissolved by mutual consent dated 12.10.2021 passed by the learned

¶15

A482 No. 1263 of 2016

¶16

¶17

Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri and that all disputes between them have been amicably resolved.

¶18

It is also pointed out that the alleged incident of 9.8.2010 is wholly concocted as both husband and wife were on a trip to Nainital from 1.8.2010 to 9.8.2010 as evident by Railway tickets and hotel bookings, as annexed to the petition.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has not filed any objections/ reply to the aforesaid submissions.

¶20

Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the report, it appears that the allegations made against the petitioners are general in nature and there is no specific assertions of any overt act committed by the petitioners in furtherance of the alleged demand of dowry. The petitioners are admittedly distant relative ( Chachiya Sasur and Chachiya Saas of the complainant) and are living separately.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of U.P. and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held that in absence of specific allegations and material showing active involvement of distant relatives, they should not be subjected to trial mechanically under Section 498-A I.P.C. or 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as it would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶22

Considering the facts of the present case, the general nature of allegations, the relationship of the petitioners with the complainant and the subsequent mutual settlement between husband and wife culminating into a decree of divorce, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of court and would not serve ends of justice.

¶23

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.2.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 and also impugned summoning order dated 16.7.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No.921 of 2014 "Smt. Sangeeta Pandey Vs. Sanjay Pandey and others" under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri as against the present petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶24

¶25

A482 No. 1263 of 2016

¶26