Allahabad HC, Court No. 76 (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), decided 29.10.2025 - Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41620 of 2025, Vivek Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another. The applicants - husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law - face prosecution in Complaint Case No. 2063 of 2023 (Menka Singh v. Vivek Singh and others) under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh (alleged dowry demand, cruelty and assault; punishments stated by the Court: imprisonment up to three years, up to one year, not less than five years, and up to two years respectively), and sought quashing of the summoning order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Civil Judge/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Azamgarh and of the entire proceedings. Considering the controversy to be a matrimonial dispute in which no injury report was placed before the Court, no previous criminal history or propensity to tamper is asserted, and cooperation at investigation is not disputed, and relying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 (tendency of over-implication; legislative relook urged) and applying Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 363, para 47 (power of exemption from personal appearance not to be read restrictively; to be exercised liberally; Magistrate may dispense attendance per Section 205, also see Section 317, of the Code), the Court directed that upon an application under Section 228 BNSS the court concerned dispense with personal attendance and permit appearance through pleader/counsel under twelve conditions: appearance through counsel on the next date or within 20 days (in default the order automatically stands vacated); bond with/without sureties under Section 91 BNSS (in default vacatur); affidavits of permanent and current address, contact number and e-mail within 15 days and of change of address within two weeks; affidavit against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; duty to ensure counsel's presence, counsel's absence being construed as the applicants' absence with liberty to enforce personal attendance; no unnecessary adjournments with duty to re-engage counsel; liability to written direction for personal attendance enforceable in accordance with law with police obliged to execute summons/warrant; duty to attend when so directed with counsel bound to inform applicants, noncommunication being no defence; prosecution/police/complainant to produce witnesses without delay; court barred from unnecessary adjournments; and coercive measures lawful against tampering with evidence or unjustified delay. Subject thereto, the application stands disposed of.
