Ubaid Ansari and 6 Othres vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ubaid Ansari and 6 Othres vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application rejected at the instance of applicant No.1 (no quashal for him); qua applicants No. 2 to 7 the matter is kept pending for consideration — notice to opposite party No.2, listing in the week commencing 22.9.2025, and interim direction that no coercive action be taken against applicants No. 2 to 7 till the next date of listing; court below free to proceed against applicant No.1.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding of Case Crime No. 94 of 2024 (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act) should be quashed, given that specific allegations are made only against applicant No.1 while the allegations against applicants No. 2 to 7 are vague and general in nature.

Court's answer

There being a specific allegation against applicant No.1 (husband of opposite party No.2), this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned proceeding at his instance; accordingly, the application is rejected at the instance of applicant No.1.

Ratio / Principle

Since the allegations against applicants No. 2 to 7 are general in nature, the matter requires consideration; notice is to be issued to opposite party No.2 and the matter listed for the week commencing 22.9.2025.

Key takeaways

Interim protection: till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants No. 2 to 7 in the aforesaid case.ratio¶¶11
Notwithstanding the interim protection accorded to applicants No. 2 to 7, the court below remains free to proceed against applicant No.1, on whose behalf the application has been rejected.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 4794 of 2025, decided 12.5.2025: quashing application against charge sheet dated 11.8.2024, cognizance order dated 23.9.2024 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 95577 of 2024 / Case Crime No. 94 of 2024 (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act; P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar). Finding a specific allegation against applicant No.1, husband of opposite party No.2, the Court rejected the application at his instance; observing that the allegations against applicants No. 2 to 7 are merely general in nature, it issued notice to opposite party No.2, listed the matter for the week commencing 22.9.2025, and directed that till the next date of listing no coercive action be taken against applicants No. 2 to 7, while leaving the court below free to proceed against applicant No.1.

Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4794 of 2025 Applicant :- Ubaid Ansari And 6 Othres Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11.8.2024, cognizance order dated 23.9.2024 as well as entire proceeding of case No. 95577 of 2024, case crime No. 94 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that on the basis of vague and general allegations all the applicants have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that from the bare perusal of the statement of opposite party No.2, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that specific allegation has been made only against applicant no.1 and the allegations against other applicants are absolutely vague and general in nature.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer, but he could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

Considering the submissions of the parties as well as on perusal of the record, it appears that there is specific allegation against applicant no.1 who is husband of opposite party No.2. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned proceeding at the instance of applicant No.1. Accordingly, the application is rejected at the instance of applicant No.1.

However, considering the fact that the allegations against applicants No. 2 to 7 are general in nature, matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party No.2.

List in the week commencing 22.9.2025.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants No. 2 to 7 in the aforesaid case.

However, the court below is free to proceed against applicant No.1 on whose behalf the application has been rejected.

Order Date :- 12.5.2025/Vandana

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad