Shailendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Compliant Case No.1039 of 2015, Sanyogita Upadhyaya Vs. Shailendra Upadhyay and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar and the summoning order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶12

On 21.07.2025, this Court had passed an order that a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA that application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for the reason that against the two summoning orders, there is a remedy of revision. Today, counsel for the applicant has brought one judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2016) 16 SCC 30 particularly on paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgement and has submitted that since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the Court’s jurisdiction.

¶13

A482 No. 5855 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla (supra), application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the summoning order.

¶16

Counsel for the applicants by arguing the case on merits has submitted that applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. opposite party no.2 left the in-law's house on the second day of the marriage. He further submits that opposite party no.2 completed her graduation before marriage and she has done one year course of computer operation and one year course of beautification from Ambedkar Nagar after marriage with the financial help of applicants no.1 and 2. Opposite party no.2 came to her parental house on 28.06.2011 and thereafter she did not return back to the house of her husband. Applicant no.1 is also graduate and at the time of marriage, he was employed in Tata Rallies India Limited, Lucknow Division at a very low wages of Rs.6,000/- per month. Behaviour of opposite party no.2 became abnormal, arrogant, provocative and insulting with her husband and in-laws and she was not happy with the marriage. Opposite party no.2 cohabited with applicant no.1 only once at the first night when she came first time to his house on 08.06.2011 and thereafter she never performed her conjugal rights. Counsel for the applicants further submits that opposite party no.2 is having her own income, but even then she is alleged that dowry has been demanded by her husband and in-laws, whereas she is economically well off. It is further submitted that suppliants have been granted bail by the trial court and the statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. was not recorded on the same date.

¶17

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that it is a case instituted in the year 2015 and the applicants have been summoned on 15.07.2016 and more than nine years have passed from the date of summons and the present application has been filed after nine years from the date of the summons. He has further submitted that after going through the record as well as the summoning order, the offence is made out against the applicants and at this belated stage, this Court may not interfere with the summoning order.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the

¶19

A482 No. 5855 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

summoning order was issued in the year 2016 and the present application challenging the same has been filed in the year 2025 i.e. after nine years. It is further to be seen that after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summons have been issued and there is allegation of dowry and harassment made by opposite party no.2 against her husband and in-laws. This Court is not supposed to do mini trial and the evidences cannot be weighed at this juncture.

¶22

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected.

¶23

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶24

November 13, 2025

¶25

Rao/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rachit Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Station House Officer Police Station Indira Nagar Distt. Lko. and Another

Rachit Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Station House Officer Lko. U.P. and Another

Anurudh Kumar @ Anirudh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Awdhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Lakshmi Rai and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tribhuwan Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another