Partly allowed¶19

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025CRLP/4834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of summoning order under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; vague and general allegations against in-laws (father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, nanand, nanad); abuse of process of law; dowry harassment complaint, P.S. Mishrikh, District Sitapur; statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; writ of Certiorari; reliance on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar and Digambar vs. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court); husband's summoning sustained; writ petition partly allowed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 03.07.2019 set aside in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 6 (Prem Prakash, Seema Devi @ Usha Devi, Santosh, Roli and Renu); writ petition allowed to that extent; the summoning order against petitioner no.1 Rajendra Prasad remains intact. ¶19

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur and the judgment and order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Session Judge, Sitapur in criminal revision were liable to be quashed by a writ of Certiorari. +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are vague and levelled only to harass all the family members and to make pressure on petitioner no.1; their summoning is not lawful but is an abuse of the process of law.

¶16

Key takeaways

The summoning order dated 03.07.2019, insofar as it relates to petitioner nos. 2 to 6 (Prem Prakash, Seema Devi @ Usha Devi, Santosh, Roli and Renu), is set aside and the writ petition is allowed to that extent.ratio¶17
The allegations against petitioner no.1 Rajendra Prasad (husband) are prima facie established; the summoning order passed against him is sustainable and remains intact.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4834 of 2020, decided 29.1.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:5996). Writ of Certiorari sought against the summoning order dated 03.07.2019 of the ACJM-I, Sitapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.8772/2018 (Smt. Nisha Pandey vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mishrikh, and against the Session Judge, Sitapur's dismissal on 07.12.2019 of Criminal Revision No.106 of 2019. The court found only general allegations against the family: no specific allegation of dowry demand or cruelty against petitioner nos. 2 to 6, no material showing the husband's alleged second marriage or children, and no medical record supporting the alleged beating (marpit). Holding the allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 vague and made only to harass the family and pressure the husband, the court set aside their summoning as an abuse of process, while treating the allegations against petitioner no.1 (husband) as prima facie established and leaving his summoning intact. Petition partly allowed, relying on the Supreme Court pronouncements in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar and Digambar vs. The State of Maharashtra.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5996

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4834 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today is taken on record.

¶7

Notice was served on the respondent no.2 but she did not turn up and no counsel has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The present writ petition has been moved with prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2019 passed by Session Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No.106 of 2019 (Rajendra Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated 03.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.8772/2018 (Smt. Nisha Pandey vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur and also prayed not to adopt any coercive method against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned orders.

¶10

It is submitted that in this case petitioner no.1 is husband of respondent no.2 Smt. Nisha Pandey. Further submitted that petitioner nos.2 to 6 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, nanand, and married nanad respectively of the opposite party no.2. The statement of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses Nitesh Mishra & Jaswant Kumar were recorded before the learned court u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and without applying judicial mind the trial court passed the order dated 03.07.2019 by which all the petitioners were summoned for trial u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order criminal revision was also filed by the petitioners before the court of Session which was also dismissed on 07.12.2019 without considering the merits of the case. In this way, the

¶11

orders passed by the learned court concerned as well as learned revisional court cannot be said to be based on material on record but are illegal, therefore, requested to set aside the orders in question and to allow the present writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied his arguments on the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2022 and Digambar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.2122 of 2020 decided on 20.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there were allegations against the petitioners for making demand of dowry and harassment of the respondent no.2. The statement of respondent/opposite party no.2 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the learned court concerned. After considering the statements made by respondent no.2 as well as other witnesses, the learned trial court passed the order dated 03.07.2019 and likewise the revisional court also passed the order after considering the facts of the case. The orders passed by both the courts cannot be said to be illegal but this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

On the perusal of record and the orders passed by learned trial court dated 03.07.2019 and learned revisional court dated 07.12.2019, it appears that there is general allegation against the petitioner no.1 and other members of his family. The respondent no.2 has alleged that the members of the family were maltreating her. Her husband was living at Chandigarh but was not taking her with him except giving assurance that after some time everything will become well and he will take her with him but never kept his words. There is no any specific allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner nos.2 to 6 who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, nanand, and married nanad respectively. There is allegation that petitioner no.1 has married with some other lady but there is no any material on record to show that he has married with other lady and there are children from the wedlock. The allegation of marpit has also been made but there is nothing on record to show any medical record to support the allegation.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations made by the complainant/respondent no.2, perusal of the statements u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. recorded before the learned court, the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned revisional court and the pronouncements by the Hon'ble

¶16

Supreme Court as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner no.1 (husband) may be said to be prima facie established, therefore, summoning order passed against him is sustainable. So far as the allegations related to petitioner nos.2 to 6 are vague and only for the purpose of making harassment of all the family members to make pressure on the petitioner no.1, therefore, the summoning of the petitioner nos.2 to 6 cannot be said to be lawful but it is an abuse of process of law.

¶17

As a result, the summoning order relating to the petitioner nos.2 to 6 Prem Prakash, Seema Devi @ Usha Devi, Santosh, Roli & Renu is, hereby, set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶18

So far as the petitioner no.1 Rajendra Prasad is concerned, the impugned summoning order relating to him will remain intact to his extent.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuri Patel Vs Addl. Chief Judicail Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Mamta Thru. Her Husband Viresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Deepu vs State of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P.