HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10136 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 04.11.2024, issued/ passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C. (Women) Azamgarh in Complaint Case Number 45 of 2023 (Babita Yadav Versus Abhishek Yadav and others), Under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahrajganj, District - Azamgarh, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C. (Women) Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on 06.01.2023 a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants who happened to be the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and other relatives under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 02.05.2021 and in the marriage, huge expenditure incurred and gifts were offered, worth of rupees including Rs. 1,50,000/- cash, gold jewelry and other articles. However, the applicants were not happy with the gifts as they demanded of one buffalo and Rs. 50,000/-. It is also alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of their demand, she was assaulted. It is also contended that despite efforts nothing was done and resulted to the fact that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to maltreatment assault in that regard and when the opposite party no. 2 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadhesh Singh, Parvat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abhishek Yadav And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) narrated the entire incident to her parents then the mother was sought to be pacified, however, the applicants continued with the said treatment and on 22.08.2022 when the opposite party no. 2 gone to her matrimonial house then again from the said date, offences have been committed by the applicants on 15.04.2022, panchayat was convened, however, nothing become normal as there was no change in the temperament, on 10.07.2022 at 12.00 pm, she was stripped off her stree-dhan and other belongings and thrown out of her matrimonial house on 20.12.2022, a registered complaint was written to the Superintendent of Police followed by the complaint on 06.01.2023 and post recording of the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant followed by Munna Yadav, Mansa Devi, the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 04.11.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the applicants have not committed the offence, the applicant nos. 2 and 3 who happened to be father-in-law and mother-in-law have a separate living in Delhi, they are entitled to protection as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. The offences, if any, can be at best attributed to the applicant no. 1, husband. It is also contended that the opposite party no. 2 has also lodged false and frivolous complaint on 18.01.2023 under Sections 352, 323, 308, 504 and 34 IPC being FIR No. 0263 of 2023 on 18.08.2023. Challenge has been raised in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14401 of 2023 (Pyari Devi and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein the matter was referred to mediation. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire allegations has nothing but the bundle of lies having no nexus with reality, further at no point of time, the applicants have committed the offence just in order to falsely implicate the applicants, only bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled without there being any barring the date regarding commission of the offence, there is no date mentioned when the applicants demanded the dowry. It is further contended that the court below without recording any prima facie satisfaction regarding the attraction of the penal provisions has summoned the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants shall be filing a discharge application and till the discharge application is being decided, no coercive action be taken. NA528 No. 10136 of 2025 2 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prime facie the case is triable as there are no material contradictions in the statements. He further submitted that the applicants may file discharge application. 6. Looking into the overall facts of the case, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 26.09.2025 to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition. 7. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action is being taken against the applicants in pursuance of the summoning order dated 04.11.2024, issued/ passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C. (Women) Azamgarh in Complaint Case Number 45 of 2023 (Babita Yadav Versus Abhishek Yadav and others), Under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahrajganj, District - Azamgarh, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C. (Women) Azamgarh. 8. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 9, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 10136 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad