Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23668 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37313 of 2024 Applicant :- Abhinav Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Avanish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 8.3.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 2.9.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, under section 406 I.P.C. read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Surajpur, District- Gautambudh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-II / A.C.J.M., Gautambudh Nagar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report has been lodged on 16.01.2024 at 4:42 p.m. by opposite party no. 2 Shalu Awasthi against three named accused Abhishek Mishra, Meena Mishra, Abhinav Mishra and manager of Udyaman Hotel, Greater NOIDA with the allegation that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was fixed with Abhishek Mishra with the consent of both the families on 20.02.2023. The engagement ceremony was performed on 24.03.2023 at Jagannath temple in Grater NOIDA. After sometime the date of marriage was fixed as 11.6.2023 with the consent of both the families and both the families had also agreed to perform the marriage at Udman Hotel, Greater NOIDA and the expenses would be borne by both the parties half each. On 25.5.2023 the father of the opposite party no. 2 had deposited Rs. 4,52,000/- (Rs. four lac fifty two thousand only) in Udyaman Hotel as advance. The invitation cards were printed and distributed by the opposite party no. 2 to her relatives and friends. On 29.5.2023 a phone call was made by Meena Mishra and Abhinav Mishra mother and younger brother of Abhishek Mishra, who told that they are not demanding any household articles so the expenditure of marriage should be borne by the girl's side. They also demanded Rs. ten lacs to be given prior to marriage. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that Abhinav Mishra and his mother Meena Mishra told that the marriage would not be solemnized until the demand raised by them is not fulfilled. The father of opposite party no. 2 told that he has already deposited Rs. 4,52,000/- (Rs. four lacs fifty two thousand only) in the hotel. He is a retired person and is not in position to fulfill the dowry demand as raised by the applicants. Thereafter they could not be contacted. Being confronted by such a situation the opposite party no. 2 along with her mother reached to the house of applicants at Greater NOIDA on 6.6.2023, where they were refused to enter into the house by applicant no. 1 Abhinav Mishra and were told that unless and until they give the money as demanded the marriage could not be solemnized. Thereafter the opposite party no 2 along with her father went to Udyaman Hotel to take back the advance money of Rs. 4,52,000/- (Rs. four lacs fifty two thousand only) as deposited by him and were told by the Manager of the hotel that the advance to be deposited would not be refunded. Being shocked on such a situation as created, the parents of opposite party no. 2 suffered health issue which deteriorated his health condition. The opposite party no. 2 along with her parents came back to Kanpur. She tried to talk on mobile phone of applicants but number was blocked. The marriage could not be solemnized on 11.6.2023, whereas the invitation cards were distributed from the side of opposite party no. 2, due to which the opposite party no. 2 and her family members felt humiliation, therefore the application was given for lodging of the F.I.R. After completion of investigation the chargesheet was submitted and the applicants were summoned. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present FIR has been lodged against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations regarding harassment of the victim for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. He further submits that the applicants are the brother and mother of Abhishek Mishra with whom the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was fixed and the allegation leveled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. They are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submits that as the allegation as made in the F.I.R. regarding deposition of Rs. 4,52,000/- (Rs. four lacs fifty two thousand only) in the Udyaman Hotel is totally false as only Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rs. one lac seventy thousand only) was deposited at the hotel and the same was returned back to the opposite party no. 2 through cheque, who in turn issued no dues certificate, which is evident from the statement of hotel manager Ravish recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. He also submits that no such demand was ever been raised by the applicants and the marriage was cancelled from the side of opposite party no. 2, which is evident from the message sent through email by opposite party no. 2 to respective hotel, requesting him to extend the wedding event date of 11.06.2023 to next available date, has to be discuss, copy whereof has been filed at page nos. 28 to 31). Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court. 5. On the other hand learned A.G.A. submits that from the perusal of the F.I.R. as well as statement of hotel manager the offence under relevant sections is made out against the applicants. From the perusal of the statement of the hotel manager, it is clear that the information about cancellation of marriage was given by Abhishek Mishra on 31.05.2023. It has also been stated by the manager that the opposite party no. 2 stayed in the hotel for three days, i.e. 9 to 11 June, 2023 for the marriage and she expected that the marriage will be performed. Later on the hotel manager came to know that the marriage was cancelled due to non fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10 lacs made by the applicants, hence the allegation that the marriage was cancelled from the side of opposite party no. 2 is totally incorrect. He further submits that the message as send by the opposite party no. 2 is of 31.5.2023 and 11.6.2023, so, from the version of FIR itself it is clear that all the attempts were made from 20.02.2023 and for the first time on 29.05.2023 applicants have raised demand of Rs. ten lacs and also asked the family members of opposite party no. 2 to bear the entire hotel expenditure, thus it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 2 is responsible for cancellation of marriage. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 7. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad