Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38010 Court No. - 29 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2284 of 2014 Applicant :- Abhimanyu Mishra And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Dev Prakash Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the summoning order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in complaint case no. 2230 of 2013 under sections 323 and 498A of IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Sangipur District Pratapgarh and the entire criminal proceedings has also been assailed. Further the revisional order dated 27.03.2014 is also under challenge. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of one of the accused Rohit Mishra son of applicant no. 1 and the marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 09.12.2009 and from their wedlock, girl baby was also been born on 21.08.2010, but all of sudden, the husband of opposite party no. 2 met with an accident and received serious injuries and thereafter, a leg has been amputated and subsequently, thereof, the opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial house and never visited the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that thereafter on wrong premises, a complaint has been instituted wherein, the allegations have been levelled against all the persons including the present applicants whereas, the statement under section 200 of Cr.P.C. of the complainant is apparent that there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry as well as any cruelty to the complainant against the present applicants and thus, the complaint remains unsupported with the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C.. 5. He further stated that in fact no such incident has ever taken place and that is why the truth has came out during course of the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. He added that the applicant no. 1 is father-in-law, applicant no. 2 is nanad and applicant no. 3 is dewar and the allegation which is supported in the statement under section 200 of Cr.P.C. is against mother-in-law and the husband and therefore, this matter would not lead to the punishment and allowing the criminal proceeding against the present applicants would amount to harassment and prima facie, it is apparently case of abuse of process of law therefore, submission is that the whole criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants vide the complaint no. 2230 of 2013 may be quashed. 6. 2230 of 2013 may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant though has opposed the submissions aforesaid, but he has failed to substantiate his arguments regarding the fact that the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2012 do not support the version of the complaint to the extent of allegations against the present applicants. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also failed to demonstrate that how the complaint would run against the present applicants as there is no allegation of any kind of committing offence in the statement of the complainant. 8. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the complaint has been instituted against the husband including his mother, father and other relatives and the general allegations have been imposed for demand of dowry as well as for committing cruelty and the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.p.C. is contrary to the complaint so as the role of the present applicants are concerned. This Court finds that in the statement under section 200 of Cr.P.C., of the complainant, the allegation is against husband and the mother-in-law and there is not a single whisper regarding any kind of committing offence against the applicants. 9. This Court is also not unmindful in the judgment rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2012(10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. 10. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and particularly the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. which do not supports the version of the complaint, this Court finds it a fit case for interference, thus, the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case no. 2230 of 2013 under sections- 323 and 498A of IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Sangipur District- Pratapgarh, against the present applicants namely, Abhimanyu Mishra, Km. Ruchi Mishra and Abhishek Mishra are hereby quashed. 11. It is clarified that the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2230 of 2013 shall go so far as the other accused persons are concerned. 12. The instant application is allowed in aforesaid terms. 13. Office shall communicate this order to the trial court concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench