Usha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Usha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief: notice ordered to respondent no.2 (steps within a week); till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case Crime No.8/8 of 2024 shall remain stayed so far as they relate to the applicant; pleadings may be exchanged in the meantime. Final adjudication deferred; application not yet finally allowed or dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 16.03.2024 and the summoning order dated 09.01.2025 in Case Crime No.8/8 of 2024, which allegedly contain only general allegations against the applicant (sister-in-law of respondent no.2), amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).

Court's answer

On a perusal of the record, it prima facie emerges that no specific allegation against the applicant has been levelled; consequently, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 and the impugned summoning order are nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie a case for interference is made out; till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case Crime No.8/8 of 2024 shall remain stayed so far as they relate to the applicant, and meanwhile pleadings may be exchanged.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.), order dated 5.6.2025 in Application U/S 482 No. 4714 of 2025 (Usha Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr.). The applicant, sister-in-law of respondent no.2, sought by an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 528 of BNSS) to challenge the summoning order dated 09.01.2025 and charge sheet no.01 dated 13.10.2024 in Case Crime No.8/8 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 354 (ka), 354 (kha), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Unnao, arising from respondent no.2's FIR dated 16.03.2024 lodged against the applicant, her brother/husband Anshu Bawaria and in-laws following the marriage of 22.05.2017. Relying on Geeta Mehrotra (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599, counsel contended that only general allegations appeared in the FIR and that the applicant resides at Raebareli while respondent no.2 resides at Unnao. The court found prima facie that no specific allegation had been levelled against the applicant and that the FIR and summoning order were 'nothing but an abuse of process of law'. It issued notice to respondent no.2, stayed further proceedings qua the applicant till the next date of listing, and permitted exchange of pleadings. Interim protection only; final determination reserved.

Court No. - 3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4714 of 2025

Applicant :- Usha Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shukla,Prachi Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for respondent no.1.

Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week. List on the date to be indicated by the office in the notice.

By means of instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 528 of BNSS) the applicant seek to challenge the summoning order dated 09.01.2025 as well as the charge sheet no.01 dated 13.10.2024 in Case Crime No.8/8 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 354 (ka), 354 (kha), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Unnao.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant's brother Anshu Bawaria had got married with respondent no.2 on 22.05.2017. Subsequent thereto, there was some acrimony between the parties which led respondent no.2 to lodge FIR on 16.03.2024 under Sections 498-A, 354 (ka), 354 (kha), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant, her brother Anshu Bawaria i.e. husband of respondent no.2 as well as her in-laws and brother in law of the husband of respondent no.2

It is contended that only general allegations are contained in the said FIR. A specific averment has been made in paragraphs 12 and 16 of the application that the applicant resides at Raebareli while respondent no.2 and her brother resided at Unnao.

Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State of U.P. & Anr : (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors: (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the argument is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the judgments has held that there is a general tendency of the complainant to involve all the members of the family of her

husband. Further, it has been observed that where allegations are being levelled, such allegations should be specific and disclosure of active involvement of accused has to be emphasized.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, it prima facie emerges that no specific allegation against the applicant has been levelled. Consequently it is apparent that the FIR which has been lodged by respondent No.2 and the impugned summoning order are nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie a case for interference is made out. As such till the next date of listing further proceedings of aforesaid case crime shall remain stayed so far as it relates to the applicant.

Meanwhile, pleadings may be exchanged.

Order Date :- 5.6.2025 A. Katiyar

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench