CRM-M-35062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (116) Pooja Gupta and Anr. Poonam Chandan Gupta and Anr. State of Punjab and Anr. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. quashing of complaint No.225/2014 dated 19.09.2024, under Section 406, 498-A, 324, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 and 120 other consequential proceedings a summoning order dated 02.05.2016 passed by t -1- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35062-2018 (O&M) Pooja Gupta and Anr. Versus CRM-M-3942-2019 Chandan Gupta and Anr. Versus State of Punjab and Anr. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEALOK JAIN **** Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-35062-2018. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-3942-2019. Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate for **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present set of two petitions quashing of complaint No.225/2014 dated 19.09.2024, under Section 406, A, 324, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 and 120 other consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 02.05.2016 passed by t M-3942-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 30.03.2026 ……Petitioners ……Respondent 9 (O&M) ……Petitioners ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioners P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners in for the respondent-complainant. The present set of two petitions have been filed seeking quashing of complaint No.225/2014 dated 19.09.2024, under Section 406, A, 324, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC and all rising therefrom including the summoning order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned trial Court, 30.03.2026 ……Petitioners ……Respondent ……Petitioners ……Respondents seeking quashing of complaint No.225/2014 dated 19.09.2024, under Section 406, B of IPC and all rising therefrom including the trial Court, MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 whereby the present petitioners and the husband of the complainant 2. petitions are clos However, at this stage it is clarified that filed by petitioner No.1 the complainant, and petitioner No.2 who happened to be respondents No.6 and 7 in the complaint. The CRM-M-3942 is the brother Gupta, is the wife of petitioner No.1 ( respondents No.4 and 5 in the complaint. 3. relationship of the petitioners with the complainant as detailed above submitted that the c and it was the second marriage for both the complainant and her husband. Owning to matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, the complainant’s brother Sunil before the Incharge, Women Cell, Patiala, were duly inquired into report dated 09.03.2013 substantiate the allegations a wherein allegations were levelled against all close relatives -2- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M whereby the present petitioners and eleven other the husband of the complainant have been summoned to face the trial. Since the complainant is the same and the are closely related, hence both the matter However, at this stage it is clarified that petitioner No.1/ Pooja Gupta, who the complainant, and petitioner No.2/Munish, is who happened to be respondents No.6 and 7 in the complaint. The 3942-2019 has been filed by petitioner No.1 is the brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant and petitioner No.2 he wife of petitioner No.1 (devrani respondents No.4 and 5 in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners relationship of the petitioners with the complainant as detailed above that the complainant was married to Pankaj Gupta and it was the second marriage for both the complainant and her husband. Owning to matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, the complainant’s brother Sunil Garg, lodged a complaint on before the Incharge, Women Cell, Patiala, raising various allegations duly inquired into by the competent authority which submitted a dated 09.03.2013 with a finding that substantiate the allegations and no action is required to be taken Subsequently, an FIR No. 4 dated 17.01.2014 was registered, wherein allegations were levelled against all close relatives M-3942-2019 (O&M) other closely related relatives of have been summoned to face the trial. complainant is the same and the parties in both the hence both the matters are taken up together. However, at this stage it is clarified that CRM-M-35062-2018 has been who is the married sister-in-law of Munish, is husband of petitioner No.1, who happened to be respondents No.6 and 7 in the complaint. The petitioner No.1/Chandan Gupta, who ) of the complainant and petitioner No.2/Puja devrani of the complainant) being Learned counsel for the petitioners after clarifying the relationship of the petitioners with the complainant as detailed above omplainant was married to Pankaj Gupta on 21.10.2009 and it was the second marriage for both the complainant and her husband. Owning to matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, Garg, lodged a complaint on 14.01.2013 raising various allegations which by the competent authority which submitted a finding that, there is no evidence to is required to be taken. FIR No. 4 dated 17.01.2014 was registered, wherein allegations were levelled against all close relatives of the husband, closely related relatives of in both the are taken up together. has been law of , who happened to be respondents No.6 and 7 in the complaint. The , who Puja being after clarifying the relationship of the petitioners with the complainant as detailed above on 21.10.2009 and it was the second marriage for both the complainant and her husband. Owning to matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, 14.01.2013 which by the competent authority which submitted a to FIR No. 4 dated 17.01.2014 was registered, , MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 including the present petitioners challan was presented only against remaining accused, including the present petitioners, were found innocent. The challan was presented on 23.04.2014, and vide order dated 06.06.2014, charges were framed against the said a 4. impugned complaint was filed summoning order came to be passed on 02.05.2016 after preliminary evidence. 5. trial Court erred in passing the summoning order without recording any specific finding offence. Moreover unnecessarily implicate the entire family had the right to avail appropriate remedies, such as filing of protest petition against the cancellation/challan report or seeking summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. challenge to the challan submitted or to the order framing charges, nor any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred. 6. respondent- the complaint could disclose commission of -3- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M including the present petitioners, but upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented only against the husband remaining accused, including the present petitioners, were found innocent. The challan was presented on 23.04.2014, and vide order dated 06.06.2014, charges were framed against the said accused. However, after a gap of approximately three months, the impugned complaint was filed by respondent No.2 summoning order came to be passed on 02.05.2016 after preliminary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the learned trial Court erred in passing the summoning order without recording any finding or linking the evidence with the offence. Moreover, the present complaint appear unnecessarily implicate the entire family of the husband, as the complainant had the right to avail appropriate remedies, such as filing of protest petition cancellation/challan report or seeking summoning under Section . It has been emphasized that the complainant did not raise any challenge to the challan submitted or to the order framing charges, nor any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioners furt complainant had failed to substantiate the complaint by leading any preliminary evidence or such evidence disclose the specific role attributable to the present petitioners commission of alleged offence. M-3942-2019 (O&M) on completion of investigation, the the husband Pankaj Gupta, and the remaining accused, including the present petitioners, were found innocent. The challan was presented on 23.04.2014, and vide order dated 06.06.2014, ccused. , after a gap of approximately three months, the by respondent No.2 on 19.09.2014, and the summoning order came to be passed on 02.05.2016 after recording of Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the learned trial Court erred in passing the summoning order without recording any evidence with the petitioners to the alleged , the present complaint appears to be an attempt to of the husband, as the complainant had the right to avail appropriate remedies, such as filing of protest petition cancellation/challan report or seeking summoning under Section It has been emphasized that the complainant did not raise any challenge to the challan submitted or to the order framing charges, nor any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred. petitioners further submits that the substantiate the allegations levelled in preliminary evidence or such evidence which specific role attributable to the present petitioners in the on completion of investigation, the and the remaining accused, including the present petitioners, were found innocent. The challan was presented on 23.04.2014, and vide order dated 06.06.2014, , after a gap of approximately three months, the on 19.09.2014, and the of Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the learned trial Court erred in passing the summoning order without recording any petitioners to the alleged s to be an attempt to of the husband, as the complainant had the right to avail appropriate remedies, such as filing of protest petition cancellation/challan report or seeking summoning under Section It has been emphasized that the complainant did not raise any challenge to the challan submitted or to the order framing charges, nor any that the the allegations levelled in which in the MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 7. and appreciation summon the present petitioners has passed the order which is absolutely illegal and perverse. To summ for the petitioners submits that the complainant cannot be permitted to do forum shopping and more so, the learned trial Court fell in error in not appreciating the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant and secondly the investigation in therein duly exonerated the petitioners to rely upon the third round of litigation Learned Counsel without any and most importantly t the petitioners with the offence and hence the summoning the eye of law 8. submits that petitioners, the complainant. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petition complainant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the real brother and sister of the husband of the complainant and their respective -4- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M It is contended that the trial Court without application of mind appreciation of the evidence and failing to record any reason to summon the present petitioners has passed the order which is absolutely illegal and perverse. To summarize the arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant cannot be permitted to do forum shopping and more so, the learned trial Court fell in error in not appreciating the fact that on two earlier occasions; the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant and secondly investigation in FIR No.4 was conducted therein duly exonerated the petitioners. Furthermore, to rely upon some cogent reason and evidence to summon the petitioners the third round of litigation(i.e., in the complaint filed by the complainant Learned Counsel submits that all the allegations are vague and omnibus without any specific date and time, much less without and most importantly there is no preliminary evidence which could connect the petitioners with the offence and hence the summoning the eye of law. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are positive allegations made in the complaint against the who have played a pivotal role in ruining the matrimonial life of the complainant. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners of hatching the criminal conspiracy against the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the real brother and sister of the husband of the complainant and their respective M-3942-2019 (O&M) It is contended that the trial Court without application of mind of the evidence and failing to record any reason to summon the present petitioners has passed the order which is absolutely arize the arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant cannot be permitted to do forum shopping and more so, the learned trial Court fell in error in not on two earlier occasions; firstly when the report in the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant and secondly when was conducted and the challan presented . Furthermore, the Court should have and evidence to summon the petitioners in complaint filed by the complainant). submits that all the allegations are vague and omnibus much less without any cogent evidence preliminary evidence which could connect the petitioners with the offence and hence the summoning order is bad in , learned counsel for the respondent-complainant there are positive allegations made in the complaint against the who have played a pivotal role in ruining the matrimonial life of the complainant. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations ers of hatching the criminal conspiracy against the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the real brother and sister of the husband of the complainant and their respective It is contended that the trial Court without application of mind of the evidence and failing to record any reason to summon the present petitioners has passed the order which is absolutely arize the arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant cannot be permitted to do forum shopping and more so, the learned trial Court fell in error in not the report in when and the challan presented the Court should have in . submits that all the allegations are vague and omnibus any cogent evidence preliminary evidence which could connect in complainant there are positive allegations made in the complaint against the who have played a pivotal role in ruining the matrimonial life of the complainant. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations ers of hatching the criminal conspiracy against the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the real brother and sister of the husband of the complainant and their respective MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 spouses, who have her husband had always been interfering in the family affairs and had been instigating the husband and the in submitted that the petitioners herein had pressurize complainant to spen there are other petitioners complainant. He submits that the present as the complaint has been rightly lodged and the has cogent material and the present 9. in this petition authorities duly challan has 10. through the record 11. to the following a) W complaint or representation of the the accused presented -5- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M , who have a say in the family’s decision and in fa her husband had always been interfering in the family affairs and had been instigating the husband and the in-laws against the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioners herein had pressurize complainant to spend huge money on the festivi there are other allegations of entrustment who happens to be the real sister of the husband of the complainant. He submits that the present petition as the complaint has been rightly lodged and the cogent material/evidence of impeccable quality to prove the allegations nd the present petition deserves to be dismissed Learned State counsel submits that the petition as the dispute is between the private duly conducted the investigation already filed. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through the record. The core-issues raised in the present following legal positions: When the authorities have already complaint or representation of the complainant the accused and thereafter, in the FIR also presented, duly exonerating the accused ( M-3942-2019 (O&M) decision and in fact, the sister and her husband had always been interfering in the family affairs and had been laws against the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioners herein had pressurized the father of the on the festivities and other functions and entrustment of ishtridhan to one of the who happens to be the real sister of the husband of the petition deserves to be dismissed as the complaint has been rightly lodged and the respondent-complainant of impeccable quality to prove the allegations dismissed. Learned State counsel submits that the State has no major role as the dispute is between the private parties and the ion in the FIR lodged and wherein Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone raised in the present petitions are with regard already taken a decision in the complainant and have discharged the FIR also, challan has been the accused (which is not under ct, the sister and her husband had always been interfering in the family affairs and had been laws against the complainant. It is the father of the and to one of the who happens to be the real sister of the husband of the be dismissed complainant of impeccable quality to prove the allegations State has no major role and the and wherein ave gone with regard the and have discharged , challan has been which is not under MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 challenged accused on b) W appreciate the preliminary evidence to be in consonance with the allegations levelled a of the evidence 12. complaint had been filed, when the complainant was when an FIR No.4 lodged allegations was investigated, wherein the allegations and the challan was presented only against the husband and the fa law and mother both the complaint as well as in the FIR order does not disclose as to which part of the preliminary evidence brought in by the complainant commission of the offence or participation offence and th silent qua the 13. Court passed in the case of in CRM-M- similar and the learned bench of this Court proceedings while returning to t -6- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M challenged), whether in such a case accused on the same set of allegations Whether the trial Court was duty bound to adjudicate and appreciate the preliminary evidence to be in consonance with the allegations levelled and thereafter, return a finding, of the evidence connects the petitioner The perusal of the record complaint had been filed, when the first complaint filed by the brother of the complainant was duly enquired and the report was filed an FIR No.4 lodged by the complainant containing was investigated, wherein the allegations and the challan was presented only against the husband and the fa law and mother-in-law. Meaning thereby, the petitioners were both the complaint as well as in the FIR. order does not disclose as to which part of the preliminary evidence brought in by the complainant, substantiates or commission of the offence or participation and the role attributed to them. The impugned order is silent qua the material findings. It is apposite to consider the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ritu Khurana And Another vs Brij Lal Chopra - 8227 of 2010, wherein in the facts of the case similar and the learned bench of this Court proceedings while returning to the following finding: M-3942-2019 (O&M) whether in such a case a fresh complaint against the same set of allegations can be entertained or not? was duty bound to adjudicate and appreciate the preliminary evidence to be in consonance with the nd thereafter, return a finding, as to which part e petitioners with the offence? The perusal of the record demonstrates that the present the first complaint filed by the brother of and the report was filed therein and also by the complainant containing similar set of was investigated, wherein the allegations were found to be false and the challan was presented only against the husband and the father-in- the petitioners were exonerated in . Furthermore, the summoning order does not disclose as to which part of the preliminary evidence brought or prima facie establishes the commission of the offence or participation of the petitioners in the alleged e role attributed to them. The impugned order is apparently It is apposite to consider the judgment of this Hon’ble High Ritu Khurana And Another vs Brij Lal Chopra wherein in the facts of the case were almost similar and the learned bench of this Court has quashed the complaint he following finding: against the was duty bound to adjudicate and appreciate the preliminary evidence to be in consonance with the as to which part resent the first complaint filed by the brother of therein and also similar set of were found to be false - exonerated in he summoning order does not disclose as to which part of the preliminary evidence brought establishes the in the alleged apparently Hon’ble High Ritu Khurana And Another vs Brij Lal Chopra almost quashed the complaint MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 “14. Not only that, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the present complainant has also earlier lodged a criminal case, by means of FIR (Annexure P including the petitioners on the same very all course of investigation, the police found the petitioners innocent and did not challan them on the ground that they are residing in their respective matrimonial houses, whereas a final police report was submitted against their remainin the trial. Once, the petitioners were found innocent on the same allegations of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry in a police case, then the complainant appears to have filed the present second false complaint(Anne basis/fresh material, maliciously, vexatiously and in order to wreck vengeance, which is not legally permissible. 15. Above all, very very vague allegations are alleged against the petitioners in this relevant connection cogent allegation in the complaint, nor any specific role is attributed to them that, how, when and in what manner, they have interfered with in the married life of Udey Bhalla and Pinky and committed the indicated offence alleg complaint(Annexure P believe that the petitioners, who were married, much prior to the marriage of Pinky, would come to treat her with cruelty or demand the dowry articles from the than 70 years of age and leading a retired life. It is now well settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498 IPC, there must be speci material against the petitioners, to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the in -7- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M 14. Not only that, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the present complainant has also earlier lodged a criminal case, by means of FIR (Annexure P- including the petitioners on the same very all course of investigation, the police found the petitioners innocent and did not challan them on the ground that they are residing in their respective matrimonial houses, whereas a final police report was submitted against their remainin the trial. Once, the petitioners were found innocent on the same allegations of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry in a police case, then the complainant appears to have filed the present second false complaint(Annexure P basis/fresh material, maliciously, vexatiously and in order to wreck vengeance, which is not legally permissible. 15. Above all, very very vague allegations are alleged against the petitioners in this relevant connection cogent allegation in the complaint, nor any specific role is attributed to them that, how, when and in what manner, they have interfered with in the married life of Udey Bhalla and Pinky and committed the indicated offence alleg complaint(Annexure P-4). Moreover, it is very highly impossible to believe that the petitioners, who were married, much prior to the marriage of Pinky, would come to treat her with cruelty or demand the dowry articles from the complainant, who is a old man of more than 70 years of age and leading a retired life. It is now well settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498 IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt material against the petitioners, to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the in M-3942-2019 (O&M) 14. Not only that, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the present complainant has also earlier lodged a criminal case, -3) against the main accused, including the petitioners on the same very allegations. During the course of investigation, the police found the petitioners innocent and did not challan them on the ground that they are residing in their respective matrimonial houses, whereas a final police report was submitted against their remaining co-accused, who are facing the trial. Once, the petitioners were found innocent on the same allegations of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry in a police case, then the complainant appears to have filed the present xure P-4) against them, without any basis/fresh material, maliciously, vexatiously and in order to wreck vengeance, which is not legally permissible. 15. Above all, very very vague allegations are alleged against the petitioners in this relevant connection. There is neither a single cogent allegation in the complaint, nor any specific role is attributed to them that, how, when and in what manner, they have interfered with in the married life of Udey Bhalla and Pinky and committed the indicated offence alleged against them in the second 4). Moreover, it is very highly impossible to believe that the petitioners, who were married, much prior to the marriage of Pinky, would come to treat her with cruelty or demand complainant, who is a old man of more than 70 years of age and leading a retired life. It is now well- settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A fic allegations/overt-acts and prima facie material against the petitioners, to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other 14. Not only that, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the present complainant has also earlier lodged a criminal case, 3) against the main accused, egations. During the course of investigation, the police found the petitioners innocent and did not challan them on the ground that they are residing in their respective matrimonial houses, whereas a final police report accused, who are facing the trial. Once, the petitioners were found innocent on the same allegations of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry in a police case, then the complainant appears to have filed the present 4) against them, without any basis/fresh material, maliciously, vexatiously and in order to 15. Above all, very very vague allegations are alleged against the . There is neither a single cogent allegation in the complaint, nor any specific role is attributed to them that, how, when and in what manner, they have interfered with in the married life of Udey Bhalla and Pinky and ed against them in the second 4). Moreover, it is very highly impossible to believe that the petitioners, who were married, much prior to the marriage of Pinky, would come to treat her with cruelty or demand complainant, who is a old man of more - settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal A acts and prima facie material against the petitioners, to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the laws or the other MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 relations cannot of dowry. In cases, where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications such relations demand of dowry. As, the benck to constitute the offence and complicity of the petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to my mind, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them. 16. As ill tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and roping all the relations of in cruelty and demand of day and leaving the Courts in lurch, to separate the grain from the chaff. This tendency needs to be curbed. If not discouraged and in the wake of thei for maximum people, the parents of the wives have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the re earlier complaint complainant then subseque implicating the accused on 14. v. State of Kerala second complaint by the same -8- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offence relating to demand of dowry. As, the benck-mark and the essential ingredients to constitute the offence and complicity of the petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to my mind, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them. 16. As ill-logical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and roping all the relations of in-laws of the girl in the matter of cruelty and demand of dowry, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day, affecting the social edifice and fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch, to separate the grain from the chaff. This tendency needs to be curbed. If not discouraged and in the wake of their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the wives have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in this relevant behalf.” Therefore, when the accused already stand exonerated in complaint and also in the FIR, coupled with the fact that complainant did not raise any objection to the same subsequently the complainant is not entitle to file implicating the accused on the similar set of allegations. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex v. State of Kerala [Law Finder Doc Id # 2813832 second complaint by the same complainant with regard to the M-3942-2019 (O&M) , in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications such cannot be held to be involved for the offence relating to mark and the essential ingredients to constitute the offence and complicity of the petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to my mind, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them. logical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and laws of the girl in the matter of dowry, have been tremendously increasing day, affecting the social edifice and fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch, to separate the grain from the chaff. This tendency needs to be curbed. If not discouraged and in r over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the wives have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against al culprits in this relevant behalf.” the accused already stand exonerated in an , coupled with the fact that the any objection to the same at any point of time, ntly the complainant is not entitle to file a fresh complainant, similar set of allegations. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranimol Law Finder Doc Id # 2813832], held that the filing of complainant with regard to the same , in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications such cannot be held to be involved for the offence relating to mark and the essential ingredients to constitute the offence and complicity of the petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to my mind, no criminal prosecution can logical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and laws of the girl in the matter of dowry, have been tremendously increasing day, affecting the social edifice and fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch, to separate the grain from the chaff. This tendency needs to be curbed. If not discouraged and in r over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the wives have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against an the at any point of time, fresh complainant, Ranimol iling of same MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 occurrence and relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as follows: 15. that criminal proceedings must be initiated on not in a mechanical or arbitrary manner, and further, in the absence of any substantive preliminary evidence of evidence -9- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M occurrence and against the same accused persons is not maintainable. relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as follows: “2. This is a case in which the process of law has abused and misused by the private respondent. A private complaint was filed against the appellants herein and other accused persons after a closure report had already been submitted qua the appellants, resulting in the trial of other accused persons, in relation to the same occurrence, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 3. The second respondent before us filed a First Information Report against the appellants herein and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2015. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the report. The Trial Court took cognizance of report qua the aforesaid appellants, and the trial commenced in CC No. 295/2016 qua the remaining accused persons. Xxxxxx 8. As noted by us earlier, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A detailed investigation has been conduct and a negative report has been filed. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said negative report. The occurrence alleged is the same. The appellants were arrayed as accused in the earlier First Information Report, and they were subsequently dropped from the investigation. By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.” In view of the above, and in light of the settl that criminal proceedings must be initiated on not in a mechanical or arbitrary manner, and further, in the absence of any substantive preliminary evidence, much less any discussion or appreciation nce thereof, connecting the present petitioners with the alleged M-3942-2019 (O&M) same accused persons is not maintainable. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as follows: “2. This is a case in which the process of law has been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent. A private complaint was filed against the appellants herein and other accused persons after a closure report had already been submitted qua the appellants, resulting in the trial of other persons, in relation to the same occurrence, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 3. The second respondent before us filed a First Information Report against the appellants herein and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2015. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the report. The Trial Court took cognizance of the negative report qua the aforesaid appellants, and the trial commenced in CC No. 295/2016 qua the remaining accused persons. 8. As noted by us earlier, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A detailed investigation has been conducted, and a negative report has been filed. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said negative report. The occurrence alleged is the same. The appellants were arrayed as accused in the earlier First Information Report, and they were subsequently om the investigation. By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is In view of the above, and in light of the settled principle of law that criminal proceedings must be initiated on the basis of cogent proof and not in a mechanical or arbitrary manner, and further, in the absence of any much less any discussion or appreciation connecting the present petitioners with the alleged The been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent. A private complaint was filed against the appellants herein and other accused persons after a closure report had already been submitted qua the appellants, resulting in the trial of other persons, in relation to the same occurrence, arising 3. The second respondent before us filed a First Information Report against the appellants herein and other accused 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2015. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included the negative report qua the aforesaid appellants, and the trial commenced 8. As noted by us earlier, this is nothing but an abuse of the ed, and a negative report has been filed. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the said negative report. The occurrence alleged is the same. The appellants were arrayed as accused in the earlier First Information Report, and they were subsequently om the investigation. By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is ed principle of law and not in a mechanical or arbitrary manner, and further, in the absence of any much less any discussion or appreciation connecting the present petitioners with the alleged MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35062 offences, the summoning order sustained and is liable to be set aside 16. aside to the extent 17. if any, stands disposed of. 18. case. March 30, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -10- 35062-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M offences, the summoning order qua the present petitioners cannot be and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 02.05.2016 is set aside to the extent it pertains to the present petitioners The present petitions stand allowed and pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected March 30, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No M-3942-2019 (O&M) the present petitioners cannot be Accordingly, the summoning order dated 02.05.2016 is set it pertains to the present petitioners. The present petitions stand allowed and pending applications, Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE the present petitioners cannot be Accordingly, the summoning order dated 02.05.2016 is set The present petitions stand allowed and pending applications, Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected MANJU 2026.04.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document