Smt. Beena Tewari @ Bittan and 4 Others vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Smt. Beena Tewari @ Bittan and 4 Others vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application kept alive for adjudication: notice issued to Opposite Party No.2 returnable within four weeks; counter affidavit directed within four weeks; matter listed for 28.7.2025 in top ten cases; proceedings of Case No.1209/2021 against the applicants other than the husband stayed till the next date of listing; the application itself stands dismissed as withdrawn only qua Applicant No.5.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings arising from Charge Sheet No.204/2020 (Case No.1209/2021) against the applicants — family members of the husband facing only general allegations of demand of additional dowry — should continue, given the Supreme Court's ruling in Geeta Mehrotra that prosecution of the husband would suffice in such cases.

Court's answer

Prima facie, this is a matrimonial dispute in which the applicants are family members of the husband facing only general allegations of demand of additional dowry; accordingly, per the Supreme Court's holding in Geeta Mehrotra, each and every family member is not required to be prosecuted and prosecution of the husband would suffice.

Ratio / Principle

On Applicant No.5's categorical submission and undertaking to appear before the trial court and face the trial, the application is dismissed as withdrawn on his behalf alone.

Key takeaways

Interim protective order: till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.1209/2021 pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Unnao, shall remain stayed so far as they relate to the applicants, excluding the husband.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manjive Shukla, J., order dated 2.6.2025 — APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 4464 of 2025 filed by Smt. Beena Tewari @ Bittan and 4 others against The State of U.P. and another, challenging Charge Sheet No.204/2020 (arising out of Case Crime No.148/2020, FIR levelling offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Sohramau, District Unnao) pending as Case No.1209/2021 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Unnao. Counsel urged reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Geeta Mehrotra ((2012) 10 SCC 741) that where only general allegations of dowry demand are made against a husband's family members, prosecution of the husband would suffice. At the outset, Applicant No.5 withdrew with an undertaking to appear before the trial court and face the trial, and the application was dismissed as withdrawn on his behalf alone. Finding prima facie a matrimonial dispute with only general allegations against the husband's relatives, the court relied on Geeta Mehrotra, issued notice to Opposite Party No.2, sought a counter affidavit within four weeks, listed the matter for 28.7.2025, and ordered that, till the next date of listing, proceedings in Case No.1209/2021 against the applicants excluding the husband remain stayed.

Court No. - 5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4464 of 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Beena Tewari @ Bittan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Sri Sunil Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, at the very outset, submits that the Applicant No.5 wants to withdraw this application with an undertaking that he shall appear before the trial court and shall face the trial.

In view of the aforesaid categorical submission and undertaking given on behalf of the Applicant No.5, this application is dismissed as withdrawn on his behalf.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed challenging therein, the Charge Sheet No.204/2020 filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Unnao in Case No.1209/2021, arising out of the Case Crime No.148/2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in P.S. Sohramau, District Unnao.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that the Opposite Party No.2 had lodged the F.I.R. No.148 of 2020 in Police Station Sohramau, District Unnao wherein, the allegations in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act have been levelled against the applicants. It has further been contended that the applicants are the family members of the husband Raj Kamal Tewari and there are only general allegations of demand of additional dowry against them.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment, rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, had categorically held that in the matters of matrimonial disputes where there are general allegations of demand of dowry against the family members of the husband, each and every family member is not required to be prosecuted and the prosecution of the husband would suffice. It has further been argued that once there are general allegations of demand

of dowry against the applicants, they are entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Leaned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and prima-facie, I find that it is a case of matrimonial dispute and the applicants are the family members of the husband. There are general allegations against the applicants in respect of the demand of additional dowry. I further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement, rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) had categorically held that where there are general allegations of demand of dowry against the family members of the husband, each and every family member is not required to be prosecuted and the prosecution of the husband would suffice.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within four weeks.

Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of four weeks.

List this matter on 28.7.2025, in top ten cases.

Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings of the Case No.1209/2021 (State Vs. Sharad Chandra Tewari), pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Unnao, so far as they relate to the applicants excluding husband, shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 2.6.2025 Salim

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench