Disposed¶21

Om Prakash Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2026NA528/645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S. 528 BNSS quashing application; charge sheet dated 10.01.2025 and summoning order dated 07.07.2025; F.I.R. No. 107 of 2024, P.S. Cantt., District Lucknow; Sections 85, 115(2) BNS; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; matrimonial dispute; general allegations against in-laws; Geeta Mehrotra (2012) 10 SCC 741 relied on; notice to respondent no. 2; interim stay of coercive steps; listed last week of April 2026; Rajeev Singh, J.; Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief: notice issued to respondent no. 2; case listed in the last week of April, 2026; till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. Final decision on the quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order reserved. ¶21

Om Prakash Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 10.01.2025 and the summoning order dated 07.07.2025, arising out of F.I.R. No. 107 of 2024, should be quashed. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances, the matter requires consideration; notice was ordered to respondent no. 2 and the case listed in the last week of April, 2026.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. and other relevant documents, it is evident that general allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. against the applicants, who are the in-laws of respondent no. 2/informant, and that there is a matrimonial dispute between respondent no. 2 and her husband.

¶17

Key takeaways

Interim direction: till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Rajeev Singh, J. — Application under S. 528 BNSS No. 645 of 2026, Om Prakash Singh and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another: the applicants, in-laws of respondent no. 2/complainant, seek quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.01.2025 and summoning order dated 07.07.2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 107 of 2024, P.S. Cantt., District Lucknow, under Sections 85, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The court found that only general allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. against the in-law applicants and that a matrimonial dispute exists between respondent no. 2 and her husband; it noted the Apex Court's observation in Geeta Mehrotra, (2012) 10 SCC 741, that there is a general tradition of all in-laws being dragged into matrimonial disputes. Notice was issued to respondent no. 2, the matter was listed for the last week of April, 2026, and, till then, no coercive steps were to be taken against the applicants.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 645 of 2026

¶3

Om Prakash Singh And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Gyan Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶11

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.01.2025 as well as summoning order dated 07.07.2025, arising out of F.I.R. No. 107 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Cantt., District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with Satyajeet Kumar Singh, who is the son of applicant no. 2 and brother of applicant nos. 3 and 4. Applicant no. 1 is the uncle of Satyajeet Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that due to some matrimonial dispute in between them, the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 dragging all the family members. It is further submitted that general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 10 SCC 741 , learned counsel for the applicants prays for indulgence of this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed. However, he does not dispute the fact that there is matrimonial dispute in between the private respondent no. 2 and her husband.

¶14

NA528 No. 645 of 2026

¶15

¶16

He also does not dispute the fact that the applicants are the in-laws of respondent no. 2.

¶17

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that general allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. against the applicants, who are the in-laws of respondent no. 2/informant. It is also evident that there is matrimonial dispute in between the respondent no. 2 and her husband. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) has observed that there is a general tradition that all the in-laws are being dragged in matrimonial disputes.

¶18

In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶19

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

¶20

List this case in the last week of April, 2026.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.

¶22

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶23

March 9, 2026

¶24

VKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Similar cases

Mohammad Zafar Siddiqui @ Mohammad Zafar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Kumari Devi vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Sanajy Kumar Patel @ Sanjay Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nawazish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankit Pandey and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another