Dismissed¶¶13

Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2025A482/44892/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 quashing application dismissed; 498-A and 323 I.P.C.; dowry demand; complaint alleged counterblast to divorce petition; general and vague allegations versus specific dated incidents; summoning order and application of mind by Magistrate; prima facie case; statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C.; FIR Case Crime No. 379 of 2022; Complaint Case No. 23105 of 2022; Allahabad High Court; Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; decided 3.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, the Court finds no good ground to entertain the application and dismisses it. ¶¶13

Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati and 2 Others vs State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103791

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No. 11)

¶4

Court No. - 78

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44892 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aarushi Khare,Ishan Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Ishan Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 23105 of 2022 (Smt. Nirmala vs. Khemchand alias Rahul Prajapati and others) under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C., Police StationBadagaon, District-Jhansi as well as the summoning order dated 23.01.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 1 was the husband of opposite party no. 2 and the instant application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Section 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was filed by the opposite party no. 2 as a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are serious contradictions in the complaint as well as in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. He further submits that only general and vague allegations have been levelled and no specific date of the incident has been mentioned in the statement of the opposite party no. 2. before the Magistrate. Lastly, it is submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order mechanically without considering to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint case as well as the summoning order.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in the complaint specific dates of the incident has been mentioned and twice the opposite party no. 2 has approached the police. Once the matter was mediated by the police and she started residing again with the applicants. Subsequently, an FIR being Case Crime No. 379

¶12

of 2022 under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Kotwali Datiya, District-Datiya, Madhya Pradesh was also registered against the applicants and lastly, the incident has taken place on 10.09.2022 whereby she was threatened for demand of dowry. Since, there are various incidents which have been categorically narrated in the complaint prior to the last incident for which an FIR was also registered earlier, it cannot be said that the complaint of the opposite party no. 2 is wholly general and vague. Specific incident with dates and other details have been mentioned. Merely, because specific dates of the incident have not been mentioned in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. would not make the complaint as a frivolous complaint. Averments made in the complaint are also supported by statement of witnesses under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the trial court before summoning the applicants has gone through the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses and having satisfied itself that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, the summoning order has been issued against the three applicants out of six accused made in the complaint. Therefore, the summoning order dated 23.1.2024 categorically establish the application of mind by the Magistrate.

¶13

In view thereof, since a prima facie case is made out, this Court do not find any good ground to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Kirti

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Belal Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mamta vs State of Up and Another

Shekhar Singh Alias Shekhar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shraddha vs State of U.P. and 5 Others