Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5996 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4834 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today is taken on record. Notice was served on the respondent no.2 but she did not turn up and no counsel has put in appearance on her behalf. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present writ petition has been moved with prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2019 passed by Session Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No.106 of 2019 (Rajendra Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated 03.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.8772/2018 (Smt. Nisha Pandey vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur and also prayed not to adopt any coercive method against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned orders. It is submitted that in this case petitioner no.1 is husband of respondent no.2 Smt. Nisha Pandey. Further submitted that petitioner nos.2 to 6 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, nanand, and married nanad respectively of the opposite party no.2. The statement of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses Nitesh Mishra & Jaswant Kumar were recorded before the learned court u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and without applying judicial mind the trial court passed the order dated 03.07.2019 by which all the petitioners were summoned for trial u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order criminal revision was also filed by the petitioners before the court of Session which was also dismissed on 07.12.2019 without considering the merits of the case. In this way, the orders passed by the learned court concerned as well as learned revisional court cannot be said to be based on material on record but are illegal, therefore, requested to set aside the orders in question and to allow the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied his arguments on the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2022 and Digambar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.2122 of 2020 decided on 20.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there were allegations against the petitioners for making demand of dowry and harassment of the respondent no.2. The statement of respondent/opposite party no.2 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the learned court concerned. After considering the statements made by respondent no.2 as well as other witnesses, the learned trial court passed the order dated 03.07.2019 and likewise the revisional court also passed the order after considering the facts of the case. The orders passed by both the courts cannot be said to be illegal but this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. On the perusal of record and the orders passed by learned trial court dated 03.07.2019 and learned revisional court dated 07.12.2019, it appears that there is general allegation against the petitioner no.1 and other members of his family. The respondent no.2 has alleged that the members of the family were maltreating her. Her husband was living at Chandigarh but was not taking her with him except giving assurance that after some time everything will become well and he will take her with him but never kept his words. There is no any specific allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner nos.2 to 6 who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, nanand, and married nanad respectively. There is allegation that petitioner no.1 has married with some other lady but there is no any material on record to show that he has married with other lady and there are children from the wedlock. The allegation of marpit has also been made but there is nothing on record to show any medical record to support the allegation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations made by the complainant/respondent no.2, perusal of the statements u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. recorded before the learned court, the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned revisional court and the pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner no.1 (husband) may be said to be prima facie established, therefore, summoning order passed against him is sustainable. So far as the allegations related to petitioner nos.2 to 6 are vague and only for the purpose of making harassment of all the family members to make pressure on the petitioner no.1, therefore, the summoning of the petitioner nos.2 to 6 cannot be said to be lawful but it is an abuse of process of law. As a result, the summoning order relating to the petitioner nos.2 to 6 Prem Prakash, Seema Devi @ Usha Devi, Santosh, Roli & Renu is, hereby, set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. So far as the petitioner no.1 Rajendra Prasad is concerned, the impugned summoning order relating to him will remain intact to his extent. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench