Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66110 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13356 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire criminal proceeding including summoning order dated 31.03.2022 in complaint case no.1318/2019, Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District-Kanpur Dehat, (Smt. Shalini alias Alka Versus Lokesh Tiwari and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Kanpur Dehat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant happens to be Jeth of the opposite party no.2, marriage whereof was solemnized with the brother of the applicant on 2.6.2017. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint lodged under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act on 23.04.2019 contains omnibus allegations without there being any specific allegation against the applicant. Further submission is that the court below while summoning the applicant has not applied its mind and as a matter of routine has summoned the applicant. He also submits that summoning is a serious issue and the same cannot be taken lightly. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that as per the narration of the allegations contained in the complaint that the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. pinpointed allegations have been made against the applicant. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and other family members including husband with an allegation that the applicant along with the other family members had demanded dowry an amount of Rs.20/- lakhs and the plot of the land despite the fact that in the marriage Rs.12/- lakhs was spent. A pinpointed allegation has been also levelled in para 7 of the complaint against the applicant, who happens to be the Jeth along with the other family members. In para 10 of the application allegation has been levelled against the applicant and family members that on 18.4.2018 the applicant along with the other family members assaulted the opposite party no.2 and took away the Stridhan and all the valuables. Further in para 15 of the complaint an incident is shown to be dated 3.3.2019 wherein again demand of dowry was being made and threat was also administered by the applicant regarding pointing out of the gun. So much so the statement under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. of the complainant also attributes criminality upon the applicant and specific allegations have been made while giving dates and the incidents. Further the statement of Gaya Prasad also supports the allegations contained in the complaint. The court below while summoning the applicant had analysed the complaint vis-a-vis the statement under Sections 200 & 202 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the issue is triable as prima facie allegations are there. 8. This Court in exercising the inherent jurisdiction is not required to interfere with the summoning orders as a matter of routine, however, there are certain exceptions that the case cannot be tried in absence of even prima facie offences. However, here the Court finds that the court below after according sufficiency and satisfaction has summoned the applicant. Thus, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. Moreover, recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors.:SLP(Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024 has interpreted the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC. Since the case of the applicant does not come within the exceptions thus it would be not appropriate for the Court to throttle the investigation in the present proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad