Disposed¶24

Shiv Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026NA528/255/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under S.528 BNSS; matrimonial dispute; 498A IPC / 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS; 3/4 DP Act; FIR No. 0003/2025, P.S. Mahila Thana, Balrampur; summoning order 24.12.2025; charge-sheet 27.11.2025; interim protection - no coercive action; settlement exploration on 06.04.2026; Geeta Mehrotra (2012) 10 SCC 741; Rajeev Singh, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim order only: notice to the private respondent; case listed on 06.04.2026 with the applicants and the private respondent to appear in person to explore settlement; till the next date, no coercive action against the applicants. Application kept pending; no final decision on quashing. ¶24

Shiv Kumar Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 24.12.2025 and the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2025 in FIR No. 0003/2025, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, should be set aside and quashed.

¶12

Court's answer

The genesis of the prosecution is a matrimonial dispute between the private respondent and her husband; therefore the possibility of settlement cannot be ruled out.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Notice issued to the private respondent.

¶21

Key takeaways

Case listed on 06.04.2026, on which date the applicants and the private respondent shall appear in person before the Court to explore the possibility of settlement.ratio¶23
Interim protection: till the next date (06.04.2026), no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Singh, J.; 02.02.2026) - Application under S. 528 BNSS (No. 255 of 2026) by Shiv Kumar Yadav and 3 others seeking to set aside the summoning order dated 24.12.2025 and to quash the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2025 in Case (State Vs. Sarvjeet Yadav & others) arising out of FIR No. 0003/2025 dated 17.08.2025, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Balrampur, in which they were summoned under Ss. 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS (corresponding to Ss. 498A, 323, 506, 504 IPC and Ss. 3/4 DP Act). Applicants contended the prosecution stems from a matrimonial dispute and relied on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; the A.G.A. opposed but did not dispute the matrimonial genesis. Court held the genesis of the prosecution is a matrimonial dispute between the private respondent and her husband and settlement is possible; notice issued to the private respondent; case listed on 06.04.2026 with parties to appear in person to explore settlement; till then, no coercive action against the applicants.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 255 of 2026

¶3

Shiv Kumar Yadav And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Maya Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

1. Heard.

¶11

2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶12

"To set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 24.12.2025 passed in case (State Vs. Sarvjeet Yadav & others) arising out of FIR No. 0003/2025, dated 17.08.2025, registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Balrampur and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.11.2025 submitted in aforesaid FIR on which taking cognizance & passing impugned order learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Offences Against Women), Balrampur summoned the innocent applicants for facing trail under section 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS corresponding section 498A, 323, 506, 504 IPC & 3/4 DP Act which are contained as ANNEXURE NOS. 1 & 2 with the affidavit filed in support of this application."

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that marriage of son of the applicant nos.1 and 2 was solemnized with the private respondent, but later on, due to some trivial issues arose between them, the F.I.R. was lodged by the private respondent implicating the applicants and her husband. He next submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶14

Relying on the judgement of Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2012) 10

¶15

NA528 No. 255 of 2026

¶16

¶17

SCC 741 , learned counsel for the applicants requests for indulgence of this Court.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted. However, she does not dispute the fact that genesis of the prosecution in question is based on matrimonial dispute.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that genesis of the prosecution in question is based on matrimonial dispute arose between the private respondent and her husband. Therefore, possibility of settlement cannot be ruled out.

¶20

In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

¶21

Issue notice to the private respondent.

¶22

List this case on 06.04.2026.

¶23

On the next date, the applicants and the private respondent shall appear in person before this Court to explore the possibility of the settlement.

¶24

Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶25

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶26

February 2, 2026 Arpan

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradeep Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chhotelal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faisal Beg and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma @ Mahesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mangal Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another