Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55393 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12510 of 2025 Applicant :- Samman @ Qadir And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 4.1.2025 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 624 of 2024 (Nasreen Vs. Mudassir & others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District Etah, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Etah. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law and a complaint stood lodged on 9.5.2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the applicants and others with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 stood solemnized with the son of the applicants on 6.1.2019 and on 1.6.2023 with respect to demand of additional dowry beating was administered to the opposite party no.2, who was pregnant with the aid of fist, legs on account whereof the health of the opposite party no.2 stood jeopardized and she was taken for medical care, ultrasound was done pursuant whereto there was miscarriage. He has further submitted that as per the allegation on 2.5.2024 also it is alleged that additional dowry was again demanded pursuant whereto atrocities and maltreatment was made. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are old aged senior citizens and whatever allegations have been sought to be levelled in deposition there is virtually nothing but the narration of the allegations contained in the complaint is verbatim. He further submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that what is to be seen in the present proceedings is the fact that the statements made corroborates with the allegations contained in the complaint and once it is found that there is no major inconsistency or variance then this Court would not throttle the investigation at this stage in the present proceedings. 6. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the allegations contained in the complaint itself refers to maltreatment by the applicants pursuant whereto the opposite party no.2 was subjected to miscarriage. As a matter of fact, this Court at this juncture is only required to see that offences are made out from a conjoint reading of the complaint and the statements made by the prosecution. Here in the present case, the Court does not find any inconsistency in the statements so made vis-a-vis the complaint. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & others, SLP (Crl.) No.(S) 9243 of 2024 decided on 12.12.2024 had the occasion to consider and interpret Section 498A IPC wherein in para 17, it was observed as under:- "17. Therefore, upon careful examination of the relevant provisions of Section 498A IPC, the precedents cited, and the factual matrix of the case, it is apparent that the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was flawed. Section 498A IPC recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty: one involving physical or mental harm in clause (a) and the other involving harassment linked to unlawful demands for property or valuable security in clause (b). These two provisions are to be read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section. The allegations made by the Appellant, which detail instances of physical abuse and harassment, fall within the scope of "cruelty" as defined under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry. Therefore, the High Court erred in quashing all criminal proceedings against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the trial ought to have been allowed to be carried out." 7. Moreover specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere in the present proceedings and to throttle the same particularly when prima facie offences are made out and whatever is being argued is a matter of trial. Thus, the application is consigned to record. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail. 10. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 16.4.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad