Kamlesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5128 of 2026

Kamlesh And 3 Others		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Rishu Srivastav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 74

¶4

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Complaint Case No.4415 of 2015 (Smt.Seema vs. Monu and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

¶7

Present complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Applicants are mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and Jethani of opposite party no.2. Whole proceeding initiated against the applicants by opposite party no.2 is malice prosecution and is liable to be set aside and in view of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 2103 SC 181, proceeding is liable to be quashed. On perusal of complaint, no offence under alleged section is made out against the applicants. Applicants constantly demanding dowry and when demand was not fulfilled, then applicants ousted opposite party no.2 on 04.07.2015 from the matrimonial house. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that applicants are enlarged on bail and regularly participated in the trial court proceeding but till today no charge has been framed. By supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicants has filed complete ordersheet of the case.

¶8

NA528 No. 5128 of 2026

¶9

2

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On perusal of complaint, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 married in the year 2014. Thereafter, after one year of marriage, opposite party no.2 was ousted from matrimonial house on account of demand of dowry. In complaint various allegation alleged against the applicants and other family members. Allegation alleged in the complaint is very much supported by statement recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of order-sheet, it is also apparent that proceeding is pending since 2015. Husband of the applicant no1 and Jeth are not appeared before trial court proceeding and non-bailable warrant and 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. proceeding has been initiated against the husband and Jeth . Husband and Jeth are not cooperating in the trial proceeding since last 11 years. Contents of summoning order and statement recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. prima-facie discloses offence against the applicants. Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the applicants.

¶12

The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

¶13

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , no ground for quashing the proceedings

¶14

NA528 No. 5128 of 2026

¶15

3

¶16

of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶17

Hence, the present application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

However, if the applicants move discharge application before the court below, the court below shall consider the same and decide the application expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶19

April 20, 2026 SKD

¶20

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶21

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

Kamlesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh and 3 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

Sagar Goyal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ilyas Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiyak Ansari vs State of U.P. and Another

Jawahar Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sharif Vs State of U.P. and Another