Saif Ali and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140474

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11975 of 2025

Applicant :- Saif Ali And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kushwaha,Km. Poonam,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajeet Shukla (AoR A/A 0066/2018) holding brief of Km. Poonam, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the summoning order dated 17.11.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 11490 of 2024, Gyasuddin Versus Sajroon Nisha and others, under Sections 120B, 420, 506, 323, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kasya, District-Kushinagar pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants who happen husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law etc. with an allegation that the marriage of the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with applicant no. 1 on 12.03.2023 though false assurance was made that belong to medical fraternity and the gifts worth lacs of rupees were also offered and huge expenditure were also incurred into marriage but the applicants herein were not happy with the same and the demand of dowry and used to make sarcastic comments regarding substantiated material being gifted to them. It is also contended that the opposite party no. 2 was assaulted, maltreated and she was attacked also, she sustained injury and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in their favour was transferred but there was no change in the behaviour, thereafter, the applicants came to be summoned on 17.11.2023 under Sections 120B, 420, 506, 323, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order

¶9

cannot be sustained particularly when totally false and incorrect allegations have levelled, every attempt have been made to falsely implicate the applicants. It is also contended that the impugned complaint had been lodged on 27.09.2023 pursuant whereto the applicants came to be summoned, however, an FIR came to be lodged on 17.10.2023 by the wife of the applicant no. 1 under Sections 420, 323, 506, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act being FIR No. 890 of 2023 against the applicants. Submission is that the applicants have been in all manners being harassed while invoking the provisions under various enactments. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are at no point of time demanded any dowry there is nothing so as to even remotely suggest that any injury was extended or sustained by the daughter of the opposite party no. 2. He submits that the statements of the witnesses are tailormade just in order to suit the circumstances of the prosecution and the court below as a matter of routine without recording any prima facie satisfaction has summoned the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks to prefer discharge application.

¶10

Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that a provisions of the statements made under Sections 200 and 202 vis-a-vis the complaint do not show that there are any material contradictions or variations which go into the root of the matter and he has no objection, in case, the applicants prefer discharge application.

¶11

Considering the submissions so made across the bar and looking into the overall facts and situations and the nature of the allegations without going into the merit of the matter, the application stands disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 10.09.2025 and, in case, such application is preferred this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be given a logical end strictly in accordance with law of the land.

¶12

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in summoning order dated 17.11.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 11490 of 2024, Gyasuddin Versus Sajroon Nisha and others, under Sections 120B, 420, 506, 323, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4

¶13

Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kasya, DistrictKushinagar pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

¶14

The protection so accorded to the applicants shall be only in those contingencies wherein the applicants sticks to the timelines and does not violate any of the conditions of the order. In case of any violation, the protection stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Rajesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saif Ali and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saif Ali and 8 Others 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Teerath Pandey @ Ram Tirath vs Sri Girish Kumar Singh Distt. Inspector of School, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and 2 Others

Pradhan Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

Samir Chandra Dwadash Shreni vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hridesh Kumar Pandey vs Shiv Sahai Awasthi, D.M., Pratapgarh and Another

Rakesh Soni and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another