HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37160 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Sri Pankaj Srivastava, AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 25458 of 2023 (Smt. Jagriti @ Subhi vs. Nand Kishor Verma & another) U/s 498-A, 323 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station Highway, District Mathura as well as 1 impugned summoning order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court (offence against women) / Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court( offence against women) /Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 03.05.2023 against the applicants who are husband and father-in-law and also against other family members being Jeth and Devar for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 28.11.2014 and in the marriage expenditure worth Rs. 8,00,000/- were incurred and gifts worth Rs. 5,00,000/- were offered, however, due to non fulfillment of the desire of the applicants demanding additional dowry, the opposite party no. 2 was harassed in all possible in the year 2016 and thereafter, on a complaint, the matter came before the persons who offered good offices and thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nand Kishor Verma And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) blessed with the child and on 09.09.2016 an agreement came to be entered into between the parties, however, for some days things were normal subsequently, demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a bullet motorcycle was made and a complaint was also lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the Mahila Thana on 20.07.2017 and on 10.03.2020 on account of non- fulfillment of the demand, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out from the matrimonial house on 28.09.2021 and she is living all alone since then. Post lodging of the complaint on 26.04.2023 before the police authorities the impugned complaint has been lodged on 30.05.2023. Post recording of the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 followed by of Manisha Saxena, Tanisha Saxena under Section 202, the applicants came to be summoned on 03.12.2024 under Sections 498, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that omnibus and general allegations have been levelled without there being any specific allegations at no point of time, the applicants had demanded dowry though the applicants came to be summoned under Section 323 IPC but there is no injury report available on record on record. Further submission is that though allegations have been made in the complaint but in the statements under Section 200 there is no date mentioned when the demand of dowry was being made except the year itself. It is also contended that on the basis of the tailor made statements, the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants be granted liberty to prefer discharge application and till discharge is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that offences are made out and whatever argument is being sought to be raised is a matter of defence. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. From the perusal of the statement under Section 200 and 202 vis-a-vis complaint, it is apparent that, prima facie, offences are made out as there is no material contradiction or variation of the statement vis-a-vis the complaint. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants, as per the instruction received from his client, seeks a direction for consideration of NA528 No. 37160 of 2025 2 the application which the applicants would be filing for discharge. 7. Accordingly, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the application stands disposed of, the applicants are at liberty to file a discharge application before the court below by 29.10.2025 and on the filing of the discharge application, the court below shall decide the same preferably within two months. 8. Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to Complaint Case No. 25458 of 2023 (Smt. Jagriti @ Subhi vs. Nand Kishor Verma & another) U/s 498- A, 323 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station Highway, District Mathura as well as 1 impugned summoning order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court (offence against women) / Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court( offence against women) /Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 9. The protection so accorded to the applicants shall be only in those contingencies wherein the applicants stick to the timelines and does not violate any of the conditions of the order. In case of any violation, the protection stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 24, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 37160 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad