HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (SN.75) Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132089 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15540 of 2017 Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Lal Pandey,Nirvikalp Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15533 of 2017 Applicant :- Niyaz Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Lal Pandey,Nirvikalp Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. ******************************* Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Prarabdh Pandey holding brief of Shri Hari Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant in Application U/s 482 No. 15540 of 2024 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and the applicants in Application U/s 482 No. 15533 of 2017 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 was married to Mohd. Shoeb, applicant and there was a matrimonial dispute between them due to which the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 5.8.2013 making the allegations that the opposite party no. 2 was married with the applicant on 22.2.2012 and Rs.5 lakhs cash and jewelry amounting Rs.3 lakhs and other household articles were given in the marriage by the father of the opposite party no. 2. However, the applicants were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage by the father of the opposite party no. 2 and used to torture the opposite party no. 2 and asked her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs for the purpose of business to be done by the applicant-husband and also a car. When the father of the opposite party no. 2 could not fulfill the aforesaid demand, all the applicants increased the torture mental and physical to the opposite party no. 2. On 22.6.2012 at about 9 a.m.in the morning the husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law badly beaten the opposite party no. 2 with kicks and fists. She was pregnant at that point of time. She called her mother and the next day she was taken to the Doctor and ultrasound was done and Doctor advised her four week's regular treatment. The mother of the opposite party no. 2 came there and tried to conciliate the matter and went back. Again on 17.8.2012 the brothers and maternal uncle of the opposite party no. 2 came to take her from the matrimonial home then the applicants herein against asked them to pay Rs. 3 lakhs and a car and till their demand is fulfilled they will not allow them to take the opposite party no. 2. They also forced the opposite party no. 2, her brothers and maternal uncle to sign on blank papers and also taken away all the jewellery of the opposite party no. 2 and told her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs and a car next time otherwise she will be killed by pouring kerosene oil. Subsequent thereto the opposite party no. 2 went to her maternal home where she gave birth to a male child. The same was intimated to the applicants, however, nobody turned up. On 9.6.2013 her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law alongwith two others came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and again demanded Rs.3 lakhs and a car. When brother of the opposite party no. 2 show inability to pay and give the same they have abused the opposite party no. 2 and her brothers and asked to give the son of the opposite party no. 2 and threatened that if she does not give the child easily she will be killed. The incident was reported by the opposite party no. 2 to the local police station and when no action was taken the matter was intimated to the superior police officers and when nothing has been done on their part, the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged. 5. The aforesaid application was treated as a complaint case and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The witnesses have supported the allegations as true Subsequent thereto the impugned summoning order dated 11.4.2014 was passed whereby the applicants have been summoned for the offences under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the said summoning order the husband has filed the Crl. Revision No. 233 of 2016 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.4.2013 by the Session Judge against which the instant application has been filed by the applicants herein. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant complaint has been lodged on the basis of general and vague allegations against all the family members of the applicant, therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the case. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA submit that in the instant case clear, categorical and specific allegations have been made against the applicants herein, therefore, no ground exists for interference by this Court. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties this court has carefully gone through the records of the case. From perusal of the record it is apparent that categorical allegations reflect specific incidents and specific role of the applicants herein. In view thereof this court do not find any illegality in the impugned orders and no interference is called for. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, both the applications lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad