Sandeep and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75698

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6723 of 2025

Applicant :- Sandeep And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradip Narain Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pradip Narain Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13341 OF 2022 (Smt. Shashi Versus Sandeep and others) under sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act in respect of applicant No.1 Sandeep and Section 4 of D.P. Act in respect of applicant No.2 Samay Singh, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court No.1, Agra and be pleased to set-aside and quash the impugned summoning order dated 25.9.2024 passed by learned Magistrate for summoning the present Applicants to face the trial under A sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act in respect of applicant No.1 Sandeep and Section 4 of D.P. Act in respect of applicant No.2 Samay Singh, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint stood filed by the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 and the daughter-in-law of the applicant no. 2 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an allegation that

¶9

the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 07.12.2015. Gifts worth 25,00,000/- were offered to the bridegroom side being Bolero Car, Furniture, LED TV, Double Bed, Dining Table and Jewellery worth Rs. 8,08,000/It is further alleged in the complaint that besides the applicants who are husband and the father-in-law, the other relatives being brother-in-law, sister-in-law, Mausi Saas used to demand additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- and the opposite party no. 2, wife was subjected to maltreatment and was forced to bring the additional dowry, even demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- was also made for purchasing of house. It is also alleged that on 07.01.2020, the applicants along with the other co-accused again demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- and when the opposite party no. 2 showed her reluctance to pay the same then the opposite party no. 2 was further subjected to hurling of abuses and beating by fist and legs. On 07.01.2021, which was a date being the birthday of the applicant no. 1 and when he came in the maternal house of the opposite party no. 2 then again demand was raised for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and even at about 3:00 in the morning, the opposite party no. 2 when made request that she should be taken to her matrimonial house then a condition was made that the opposite party no. 2 would be welcomed to her matrimonial house only when the additional dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/- be made. Thereafter, the father of the opposite party no. 2 made a complaint before the Mahila Thana on 30.09.2022 and on 28.10.2022, a formal compromise was made in the Mahila Thana that the opposite party no. 2 would be granted permission to enter the matrimonial house but the opposite party no. 2 has not been allowed to enter in her matrimonial house, thus, complaint was lodged before the Station Officer of the concerned police station and before the SSP

¶10

followed by the present complaint. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The court below by virtue of the order dated 25.09.2024 summoned the applicant no. 1 under Section 498A, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act and applicant no 2 under Section 4 of the DP Act.

¶11

Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that totally incorrect and frivolous allegations have been levelled. The applicants had at no point of time demanded any dowry and no such incident took place on 07.01.2020 or 07.01.2021. It has also been argued that there is no iota of evidence to suggest any criminality. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been initiated by the applicant no. 1 but the opposite party no. 2 is not coming to her matrimonial house.

¶13

Learned AGA while countering the submission so made by the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from perusal of the complaint vis-a-vis the statement which stands recited in the summoning order under Section 200 reveals that pin pointed allegations of dowry along with the instances have been mentioned and the court below while summoning the applicants as recorded prima facie satisfaction and, thus, the present case does not warrant any interference.

¶14

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

¶15

In the present case, the Court is confronted with the summoning order, summoning the applicants under the above noted provisions. There are certain broad parameters according to which the

¶16

yardsticks for determining as to whether the summoning order is vitiated or not. Amongst others one of the criteria is the nature of allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements of the witnesses. Apparently, there happens to be pin pointed allegations of demand of dowry while specifying the amount and also the date on which the said demand was made coupled with the fact that on account of non offering of the dowry as demanded the applicant has not been allowed to enter her matrimonial house and administered beating. The statement of witnesses have been considered by the court below while summoning the applicant. The veracity of the said statements and the fact as to whether the said incident took place as per the allegations in the complaint and the statements under Section 200 and 202 are not to be adjudged at the summoning stage.

¶17

On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicants as to whether there has been a jurisdictional error committed by the court below no answer is forthcoming. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the statements support the prosecution case and once there is no contradiction or variation in the statement vis-a-vis the complaint, this Court is not required to record any finding on merits as the same is subject matter of trial.

¶18

Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is rejected .

¶19

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Rajesh

¶20

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

Sandeep and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases