Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39498 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8794 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Pandhija Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishika Raj Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Rishika Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sheetla Prasad, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. Present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 08.04.2024 as well as summoning order dated 15.06.2024 passed in Case No.48359 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.277 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned proceeding is absolutely malicious and just to harass the applicant, who is 65 years old, the impugned proceeding has been initiated. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation for demand of dowry and harassment, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 has also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. almost on the same set of allegation which was registered as complaint and proceeding for recording the statement is going on. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that there is sufficient material on record showing that there was continuance harassment to the opposite party no.2 on the part of the applicant, therefore, no ground for interference is made out. 5. After hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that though the opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging harassment for the demand of dowry without giving any specific date of incident but in that case, the Court has yet to issue summons. In the impugned proceeding, there are specific allegation of beating as well as harassing the opposite party no.2 on the part of applicant. So far as contention of counsel for the applicant that there is no specific demand of dowry is concerned, the Apex Court, in the case of Aluri Venkata Ramana vs Aluri Thirupathi Rao in SLP (Cri) No. 9243 of 2024 decided on 12th December, 2024, has observed in para 13 that attracting the ingredients of Section 498A IPC demand of dowry is not essential. Mere harassment amounting to cruelty is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC. 6. In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 A.Kr. Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad