Akhilesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 2396 of 2016 (State Vs. Akhilesh and others) arising out of case crime No. 18 of 2015 under Sections 147, 452, 498-A, 323 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Tahbarpur, district Azmgarh pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Azamgarh as well the charge sheet dated 30.8.2015 submitted in the aforesaid case.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in this case they have falsely been implicated for demand of dowry and harassment. He further submits that the applicants are relatives of the husband, the applicant no.1 is husband whose application was rejected by this Court by order dated 19.01.2017.

¶13

He further submits that applicant no. 2 Pravesh is Devar, applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is Mamiya Sasur, applicant no. 5 is Mausiya Saas, applicant no. 6 is Mamiya Saas. All the applicants are related to the husband of the informant in remote relation. They may have no any interest in the demand of dowry or harassment of the wife of applicant no. 1, the husband. There is general allegation in the F.I.R. against all the applicants regarding Maar-peet and demand of T.V. and motorcycle. No any specific allegation has been made against these applicants in this regard. This F.I.R. was lodged only for the harassment of the applicants those are remotely

¶14

A482 No. 1827 of 2017

¶15

2

¶16

related to the husband/applicant no. 1 though his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court by order dated 19.01.2017. This is clear case of misuse of process of the Court, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings against the applicants. He relied his arguments on the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. Sate (2012)10 S.C.C 741.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶18

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another 2012 LawSuit(SC) 716 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 20 which is as under:-

¶19

[20] It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

¶20

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

¶21

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

¶22

In the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4069 of 2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 22 which is as under:-

¶23

22. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed:

¶24

"27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations

¶25

A482 No. 1827 of 2017

¶26

3

¶27

indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No.2 has made vague and omnibus allegations against the accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts.

¶28

30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

¶29

31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been

¶30

contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry.

¶31

A482 No. 1827 of 2017

¶32

4

¶33

However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”

¶34

In the present case in hand there is matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1, the husband and the wife opposite party. There are general allegations regarding demand of T.V. and motorcycle against the husband and other relatives. The wife has filed a complaint that is still pending before the court. In the meantime, the wife came to know that her jewellery is being given in the marriage of her nanad by the husband and his family member, then again came to her sasural where she was again beaten with kicks and fists and was also threatened to bring T.V. and motorcycle. The incident of marpeet took place within the house but there is not specific allegation as to who beat her and made demand of T.V. and motorcycle except general allegations against all the applicants.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record, it shows that dispute was between husband and wife but the applicant nos. 2 to 6 being relatives of his family have also been named in the present case with general allegation of making demand of dowry and harassment by lodging F.I.R. second time since complaint case is already pending before the court in this regard.

¶36

In view of the observation made by Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Shobhit Kumar Mittal (Supra) the application to the extent of applicant nos. 2 to 6 stand allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is partly allowed to the extent of applicant nos. 2 to 6 and proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicant nos. 2 to 6 are hereby quashed.

¶38

March 18, 2026 Suraj Srivastav

¶39

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh and 5 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayab Khan Alias Nimma vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Mustafa @ Mustafa Noori vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar @ Lakshya Tomar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamendra Singh @ Betu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another