Bholanath Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Bholanath Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: notice issued to opposite party no.2 (steps within seven working days); proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 19816/2021 stayed qua the revisionists till the next date of listing; interim protection forfeited if steps are not taken within the time specified. Final relief (quashing of complaint and impugned order; discharge) left open for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Complaint Case No. 19816/2021 and the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar are liable to be quashed and the revisionists discharged.

Court's answer

Having taken note of the FIR allegations against the revisionists (parents-in-law, devar and nanad of opposite party no.2) and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cited precedents, the Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue shall remain stayed qua the revisionists, conditional on steps for service of notice being taken within seven working days, failing which the benefit of interim protection will not be available.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Saurabh Lavania J., order dated 5.8.2025) — Bholanath Yadav and 3 others, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (devar) and sister-in-law (nanad) of opposite party no.2, sought quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 19816/2021 (in order 301/2021), Sarita Yadav v. Arvind Kumar Yadav, for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, together with the order dated 13.06.2025 of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, and their discharge. Taking note of the FIR allegations and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), Payal Sharma (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473), Safiya Bano (2024 SCC OnLine SC 222) and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy (2024 SCC OnLine SC 127), the Court held that the matter requires consideration, issued notice to opposite party no.2, and stayed the proceedings qua the revisionists till the next date of listing, conditional on steps within seven working days, failing which interim protection lapses. Interim order only; merits left open.

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 756 of 2025

Revisionist :- Bholanath Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Nayak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for the following main relief:-

"Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record from the court below and allow the revision of the revisionists thereby quashing entire Criminal Complaint Case No. 19816/2021 as well as the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Fast-I / Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 19816/2021 (in order 301/2021), offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (Sarita Yadav Vs. Arvind Kumar Yadav and others), and allow the application for discharge of the revisionist."

Taking note of the allegations leveled in the FIR against the revisionists, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (devar) and sister-in-law (nanad) of opposite party no.2 as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 , Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 222 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

Accordingly, issue notice to the opposite party no.2. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days.

List/put up this application after service alongwith report in this regard.

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, shall remain stayed qua the revisionists.

In case, the steps are not taken within the time specified for this purpose, then the benefit of interim protection would not be available to the revisionists.

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anand/-

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench