HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2258 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite parties no.2 to 5 is dispensed with. 3. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2025, Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. 4. Applicant is the wife of Mukesh Kumar and her marriage was solemnized on 26.06.2007 as per Hindu rituals. After marriage, opposite parties and her husband demanded dowry and harassed the applicant continuously. Three children were also born out of the wedlock. The applicant was tortured by her hatband and in-laws, therefore, she lodged a report in the police station. However, the matter was reconciled between the applicant and her husband, but again the torture was being made by her husband and in-laws. The applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 C.P.C., husband of the applicant and the answering opposite parties were summoned. The aforesaid summoning order dated 07.06.2024 was challenged by the answering opposite parties before the revisional court and the revisional Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Praveen Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Meera .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) court has allowed the revision vide impugned order. Hence the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite parties are the close relatives of the applicant and they also used to demand dowry and harass the applicant, therefore, they are also liable to be prosecuted. He further submits that the revisional court without application of mind, has passed the impugned order and quashed the entire proceedings. 6. After going through the record and submissions made on behalf of the applicant, I find that an application was filed in the police station for lodging the FIR and the police has given a report on 16.05.2022 stating therein that applicant has levelled allegation of dowry demand and harassment against the husband and there is no allegation against the answering opposite parties. The applicant was married fifteen years back and the answering opposite parties, who are the near relatives of the husband, have been implicated on the ground that they had also demanded dowry and harassed the applicant. 7. The law is settled in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 that the relatives may not suffer in the case of dowry demand unless there is specific allegation levelled against them. In the present case, I find that there is no specific allegation against the answering opposite parties, who are the near relatives of the husband, therefore, their case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). In view of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the revisional court needs no interference. 8. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. December 19, 2025 Rao/- NA528 No. 2258 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench