Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24085 of 2015 Applicant :- Shivam Gupta And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gaur,Mohd. Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sushil Dubey Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. None appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this application even in the revised reading of cause list. Heard Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1570 of 2013 (Smt. Bhumika Saxena vs. Shivam Gupta and others) under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Kotwali, District- Mainpuri pending in the court of C.J.M. Mainpuri. 3. The instant application arises out of matrimonial discord. Marriage of O.P. no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1. Due to matrimonial discord, O.P. no.2 lodged a complaint case on 03.06.2013 against her husband and relatives of her husband, i.e. present applicants wherein it is alleged that the complainant/O.P. no.2 has solemnized marriage with applicant no.1 on 15.02.2013 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Allahabad, but parents of her husband were not satisfied with the marriage and demanded Rs.25 lakh as dowry, when the said demand was not fulfilled they have subjected the complainant to various kinds of cruelty and also ousted from her matrimonial home on 07.04.2013. However, apart from her husband (applicant no.1), O.P. no.2 has implicated her father-in-law (applicant no.2), mother-in-law (applicant no.3) and nanads (applicant nos.4 & 5). The summoning order and entire proceedings of the case are under challenge in this application. 4. On perusal of order sheet, it transpires that vide order dated 17.08.2015, matter was referred to Mediation Centre of this Court grating interim protection to the applicants and further, direction for issuance of notice to O.P. no.2 was given. Thereafter, report was submitted by the mediator that mediation failed due to none appearance of the parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.01.2016, the matter was again referred to the Mediation Centre. Another report of the Mediation Centre dated 06.05.2016 shows that the mediation has completed without arriving at any agreement. Since then, the instant application remained pending for almost 9 years and today when the matter was taken up, neither counsel for the applicants nor counsel for O.P. no.2 appeared, so this court has proceeded to finally decide the matter after perusing the record itself. 5. On perusal of averments made in the accompanying affidavit to this application and also the complaint, it appears that allegation against applicant nos.2 to 5 are general and vague in nature. It further appears that the entire family members of applicant no.1 have been roped in just to put undue pressure on him. Hence, the instant proceeding against applicant nos.2 to 5 seems nothing else but pure abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the allegations made in the complaint against the applicant nos.2 to 5 are general and vague in nature. He submitted that so far as summoning of applicant no.1 is concerned, there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 8. A bare perusal of the complaint and the evidence of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively filed along with the application as Annexures 3 to 5 shows that O.P. no.2 had lodged a complaint wherein along with her husband (applicant no.1), she had implicated the entire family members of her husband. It is a clear case of putting undue pressure on the husband by implicating his entire family members. 9. From the material and evidence available on record, it emerges that a prima facie case is made out against applicant no.1, the husband of the complainant. Therefore, the prayer for quashing of proceedings against him is liable to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the instant application qua applicant no.1-Shivam Gupta (husband) is dismissed. 11. However, upon careful consideration, this Court finds merit in the submissions made with regard to applicant nos.2 to 5. The only allegation levelled against them is that they were not happy with the dowry and were demanding cash Rs.25 lakh, which are vague and general in nature. The complaint fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicant no.2 to 5 were directly involved in any wrongdoing. 12. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over- implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the relatives of the husband except casual reference to their names, it would not be just to direct them to suffer the ordeal of facing criminal trial pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 14. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has reiterated the importance of preventing the abuse of the legal and judicial process in matrimonial disputes. The court emphasized that if the FIR fails to disclose specific allegations against the family members of husband, especially in matters of matrimonial bickering, it would be an abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically subject the named accused to trial. This principle is applicable to the present case, where the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature, lacking specific instances of wrongdoing. By quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants, the court ensures that the legal process is not misused to harass individuals based on unsubstantiated accusations, thus upholding the principles of justice and fairness. 15. However, so far as the general allegations are concerned, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:- "19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law." 16. It is to be seen that the general and vague allegation in respect of a matrimonial dispute against in-laws is indicative of the fact that the allegations are founded in order to enhance the gravity of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam's case (supra) has quashed the proceedings of a matrimonial dispute due to the vague nature of allegations against the in-laws. It is evident that the same rationale applies in the present case. The Court has reiterated that relatives of the husband cannot be compelled to undergo trial without specific allegations of dowry demand and emphasized the need to discourage criminal trials that lack specific charges. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, has held that mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, considering the vague and general nature of the allegations against the applicants, and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court deems it fit to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. 18. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it becomes imperative to assess the nature of the allegations levelled against applicants. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, which has been mentioned hereinabove, highlights the common tendency to implicate not only the husband but also his immediate relations in complaints filed under Section 498-A IPC. However, it is essential for the courts to exercise careful scrutiny and consider pragmatic realities while dealing with such complaints, especially concerning allegations against distant relatives who may have had minimal or no involvement in the events alleged. 19. Since in the instant matter, there is no specific averments against the applicant nos.2 to 5, who are relatives of husband of O.P. no.2, hence, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application qua applicant nos.2 to 5 is hereby allowed and summoning order dated 19.09.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1470 of 2013 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Kotwali, District-Mainpuri qua applicant nos.2 to 5, is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad