HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 265 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Nagina, District- Bijnor, in Criminal Complaint Case No.1397 of 2014 Pooja Singh Vs. Vipin Kumar and others by which complaint case has been dismissed and the accused person/opposite party have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498- A, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Nagina, District- Bijnor. 3. The complaint case was filed with allegation that the complainant, Pooja Singh, was married to opposite party No.2- Vipin Kumar on 08.10.2008. Her husband, Vipin Kumar, mother-in-law- Mungiya and brother-in-law- Virendra demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakh as dowry and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 17.04.2014 and thereafter she was residing with her parents. After a few days, on 23.04.2014, accused persons came to her parental house and put their demand and abused her. She was again assaulted by them and sustained injuries. They also extended threats to kill her. 4. During the course of proceedings, it was admitted that no medical examination or injury report was produced. The explanation offered by the complainant was that the injuries were minor (gum chot) and, therefore, no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Malik Juned Ahmad Pooja Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) medical examination was conducted. The accused persons in their defence, brought on record documentary evidences to show that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., being case No.423/2014 was earlier contested between parties, wherein the Family Court recorded a finding that the complainant herself had treated the opposite party with cruelty. It was further shown that matrimonial Case No.307/2015 under Section 13 of Family Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was decided by the Family Court and by judgment and decree dated 08.10.2018, the marriage between parties stood dissolved. 5. The trial court upon appreciation of evidence also noticed material contradictions in the version of the complainant, while the complaint alleges a demand of Rs.3 lakh. The oral evidence referred to a demand of Rs.5 lakh in which Rs.3 lakh was given to opposite party. No explanation worthy acceptance was offered for this contradiction. No documentary evidence has been placed on record regarding receipt of Rs.3 lakh or any other amount of money or any other valuable security by opposite party to satisfy the requirements of Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 6. This Court finds that the allegations in the complaint are required to be assessed in the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial discord and prior adjudications by the Family Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that criminal proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. and allied provisions are often invoked as a pressure tactic after matrimonial relationship has irretrievably broken down. 7. In Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that exaggerated and omnibus allegations, particularly against family members, have become a matter of serious concern, and the Court must exercise grave caution before permitting criminal prosecution to continue. Similarly, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 6 SCC 599, it was held vague and inconsistent allegations arising out of matrimonial disputes should not be permitted to result in a criminal trial. 8. The absence of medical corroboration in a case alleging physical assault, coupled with contradictory versions regarding dowry demand, assumes added significance when viewed alongside, the prior judicial findings holding the complainant responsible for cruelty and the subsequent dissolution of marriage. These circumstances, lend support to the conclusion A378 No. 265 of 2024 2 that criminal complaint was pursued more as a continuation matrimonial animosity rather than a bona fide prosecution. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2002) 2 SCC 636 has held that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution especially where the dispute is a predominantal of a civil or a matrimonial nature. 10. Learned Trial Court upon holistic appreciation of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, has taken a possible and legally sustainable view. No perversity, illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated which may warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 11. It is well settled that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and leave to appeal can be granted only where the findings are wholly unreasonable or perverse, which is not the case here. The application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is dismissed. February 3, 2026 P. Pandey A378 No. 265 of 2024 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad