Partly allowed

Amit @ Amit Kumar Bodh and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2025A482/4082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash matrimonial cases involving the applicant husband and family members. Mediation failed. Court rejected quash request for the husband due to prima facie case but kept proceedings against in-laws in abeyance pending notice. Cases: Sushila Devi, Geeta Mehrotra.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against applicant No. 1 (husband) rejected; proceedings against applicants No. 2 to 5 kept in abeyance pending notice and affidavits.

Amit @ Amit Kumar Bodh and 4 Others vs State of Up… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4082 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Amit @ Amit Kumar Bodh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings as well as summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 5156 of 2022 (Anshu vs. Amit and others), under section 323, 506, 354-B, 452, 504, 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of ACJM, Ghaziabad. Further prayed for quashing of Summoning order dated 17.12.2022 issued against the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 under section 323, 506, 452, 504, 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, against applicant no. 4 under section 323, 506, 452, 504 I.P.C. and applicant no. 5 under section 323, 506, 354-B, 452, 504 I.P.C. and order of Bailable warrant dated 18.04.2023, NBW dated 05.06.2023 as well as order of section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 19.12.2023 against the applicants.

¶7

Perusal of record transpires that while entertaining the instant matter, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order 15.02.2024 remitted the matter to the Mediation Centre of the High Court for settlement of the dispute amicably, as the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute.

¶8

In compliance thereof, the Registrar, AHCMCC has submitted report dated 16.06.2024, which shows that "Mediation complete, no agreement" had arrived at between the parties.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that opposite party no. 2 had filed false complaint with an

¶10

oblique motive to harass not only her husband (applicant No.1), but also the other family members, who have no direct involvement in the matrimonial affairs. It is pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to applicant nos. 2 to 5 and the allegations levelled against them are general and omnibus in nature. It is contended that continuation of proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 INSC 505 and Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that, in so far as applicant no.1 (husband) is concerned, the allegations against him are specific and are duly supported by the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during investigation. Hence, prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against applicant no.1.

¶12

Heard rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perused the record.

¶13

A perusal of the complaint and the accompanying documents clearly indicates that the Opposite Party No.2 has sought to implicate the entire family of her husband. It appears to be a classic case of over-implication with the intention to exert undue pressure on the husband by roping in his entire family.

¶14

From the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it emerges that a prima facie case is made out against applicant no.1, the husband of the complainant. Therefore, the prayer for quashing of proceedings against him is liable to be rejected.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant application qua applicant no.1husband is dismissed.

¶16

So far as the applicant nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they are in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 and their case stands on different footing than the case of applicant no. 1 who is husband of opposite party no. 2 as the main allegation of demand of dowry is against him. As the case of applicant no. 2 to 5 is on different footing and no specific allegations are levelled against these applicants, therefore, giving the

¶17

benefit of judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) , the mater in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 5 requires consideration.

¶18