HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14680 of 2022 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 226 of 2020 (5182 of 2019) "Smt. Jyoti Chaudhary Vs. Gajendra Singh Chaudhary and others" under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Offence Against Women), District Jalaun at Orai as well as to quash the summoning order dated 13.10.2021 passed in the aforesaid case. 2. It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of Mediation Centre dated 13.11.2022 demonstrate that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA. Perused the record. 4. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Asharfi Lal, G.A. Smt. Janak Kishori And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre- trial before the actual trial begins. 5. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard. 6. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked. 7. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case. 8. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either. 9. The interim order, if any, is vacated. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes A482 No. 14680 of 2022 2 issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants. 11. As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. May 12, 2026 S.Ali A482 No. 14680 of 2022 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad