Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53411 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10939 of 2025 Applicant :- Chaman Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Smita Singh Deo,Sohan Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sohan Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the final report/charge sheet dated 10.02.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5313 of 2025, arising out of case crime no.550 of 2024, under Sections-80(2), 85 BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sector-24, Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants have been falsely implicated and there are general allegation against them. It is further submitted that applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. It is also submitted that present applicants have been residing separately from the deceased. Therefore, ingredients of Section 80(2) BNS (304B IPC) are not attracted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023) wherein the court discussed the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that co- accused Shivam Rana, has been granted protection by this court in Application u/s 528 BNSS No.7505 of 2025, therefore, applicants are also entitled for the same protection. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that from the perusal of record, it is clear that deceased Parul Chauhan has died within 7 years of marriage, not under normal circumstances, but by hanging, and before her death there was continuous harassment by the applicants for demand of dowry. 5. Learned AGA has also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 6. After hearing the submission of parties and on perusal of record, it appears that opposite party no.2 in FIR as well as in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., narrated the entire story regarding continuous harassment on the part of the present applicants and also earlier compromise as well as complaint at police station-Kabir Nagar, Ghaziabad. 7. It is not in dispute that deceased has died within 7 years and there are allegations against the applicants that they have been continuously harassing the deceased prior to her death. For the applicability of Section 80(2) BNS (304B IPC), basic ingredients are that the deceased must have died within 7 years of marriage and soon before her death, there must be cruelty and harassment for the dowry. 8. From perusal of record, it is clear that all the ingredients of Section 80(2) of BNS (Section 304B IPC) are attracted. So far as the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, there the issue was regarding abetment for suicide, but in the present case, the issue is dowry death u/s Section 80(2) of BNS (Section 304B IPC) which is special provision and because of legal fiction there is presumption of causing dowry death read with Section 113B of Evidence Act, if certain ingredients are fulfilled. Therefore, the judgement relied upon by the applicants is not applicable in the present case. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are also entitled to get protection on the ground of parity with Shivam Rana is concerned, that is absolutely misconceived because Shivam Rana was the relative of the applicants and protection was granted only on the ground that admittedly he has not been residing with the applicants. Therefore, there is no parity of the applicants with Shivam Rana and applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. 9. In view of above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding. 10. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad