HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7756 of 2019 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicant- husband has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.818 of 2017, titled Shruti Pandey @ Roli Pandey Vs. Pushkar Pandey @ Pankaj and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the summoning order dated 2.1.2018 passed by ACJM, court no.28, Lucknow. Learned counsel submits that as a result of matrimonial dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2, the parties separated and on the basis of the a complaint filed by opposite party no.2, the applicant has been summoned through the impugned order dated 2.1.2018 to face prosecution for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that though the complainant had impleaded the sisters of the applicant and his brother-in-law as co-accused, but no process was issued against the other relatives of the applicant and process has been issued only against the applicant- husband, therefore, the complaint against the applicant is false. According to him, in this background, it becomes clear that the criminal prosecution of the applicant is attended with malafide intentions. He submits that the parents of the applicant had died before the filing of the complaint, as they both were suffering from cancer and opposite party no.2 had not taken care of his parents, who did not reside with the applicant after leaving his company on 3rd February, 2016. Learned counsel further refers to the grounds pleaded in the application to seek intervention of this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant, who argued that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.6.2012 and soon thereafter the complainant was dealt with cruelty and as a result the complainant rightly prayed for prosecution of the accused. He submits that the impugned summoning order is based upon proper appreciation of the complaint and the evidence on record, therefore, no case would be made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He prays that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Karuna Kant Gupta Pushkar Pandey @ Pankaj .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) application be dismissed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that initially the notice in the petition was issued on 6th November, 2019 as the applicant husband had expressed his willingness to settle the dispute with the opposite party no.2. As a result, the parties were relegated before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and they were to appear on 29th November, 2019, however, the mediation attempt for settlement the dispute between the parties had failed and the report in this regard dated 14.11.2022 is on record. The argument by the leaned counsel for the applicant that since the accusation against the two sisters of the applicant and his brother-in-law were not found to be truthful, therefore, the case qua the applicant cannot sustain is without any merit. A perusal of the impugned summoning order would show that the trial court has given valid reasons for not issuing process against the other relatives of the husband and in this regard the reliance has been placed upon the judicial pronouncement by The Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC. A reading of the complaint would also show that according to the complainant herself, the sisters of the applicant were residing in a separate portion at the ground-floor, therefore, merely because the other accused persons have not been summoned, it cannot be said that no prima facie case would be made out against the applicant husband also. Further, the allegations raised in the complaint relating to the cruelty would be a subject matter of evidence and at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint or the evidence on record would not make out a prima facie case against the applicant. Since, the trial court has carefully examined the material on record while issuing process against the applicant, therefore, the said order does not call for any interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, without meaning any expression on the merits of this case, the petition is hereby dismissed. December 1, 2025 Raj A482 No. 7756 of 2019 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench