Smt. Sameena and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. andORS.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10776

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1276 of 2016

Applicant :- Smt. Sameena And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Andors.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mahmood Alam,Gayasuddeen,Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan,Shamshad Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants states that application on behalf of applicant no. 3 has already been disposed of on 11.03.2016 by this Court.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This application has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceedings, order of cognizance and impugned charge sheet no. 44 of 2014 filed in pursuance of Case No. 2181 of 2015, Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, under Section 498-A, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hardoi and also further prayed to stay the further proceeding in the aforesaid case.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case the applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law and applicant no. 2 is brother-in-law of opposite party no. 4 who was wedded to applicant no 3 Sharafat. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the opposite party no. 4 was being harassed by her husband and present applicants in relation to demand of dowry and harassment. It is also submitted that there is allegation that alto car and a plot were being demanded by the applicants. It is also submitted that no any specific role against the applicants for making harassment and demand of additional dowry to the opposite party no. 4 but it is against her husband. It is also submitted that applicant no. 1 was not living with applicant no. 3 and opposite party no. 4. There may be no any interest of applicants in making demand of additional dowry or making harassment to the opposite party no. 4. It is also submitted that incident of maar-peet has been alleged to have taken place on 01.07.2014 at the house of father of opposite party no. 4 but no

¶11

any injury report to support the allegation of marpeet. There is no any allegation against the present applicants. The applicants were roped in this case by opposite party no. 4 only for making pressure on the husband with false allegations. He relied his argument on the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr Vs. State of U.P. on 17 October, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 and on the case of Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2021, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶13

On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the contents of the F.I.R. and the statements of the opposite party no. 4 and other witnesses, it appears that there is general allegations of demand of alto car and a plot at the time of solemnization of marriage and causing harassment against the applicants also but no any specific role has been assigned to them. The role of maar-peet has been given to her husband at her home. The circumstances of the case shows that the applicants had been named in the F.I.R. only for making pressure on the husband of the opposite party no. 4. These facts were not taken into consideration by the learned court concerned while passing the order against the applicants with other co-accused persons under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In this way, if the proceedings are permitted to continue it will amount to misuse of process of the court. As a result, the order passed by the learned court concerned to the extent of present applicant nos. 1 & 2, those are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 4 are liable to be quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, this application is allowed and entire proceedings of Case No. 2181 of 2015, Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hardoi, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to the extent of present applicants are hereby quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, this application is, hereby, allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Anurag Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sameena and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sameena and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Ors.

Ravi Rathore Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Pramod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Upendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./ Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko.

Braj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rampreet Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another