Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78781 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13633 of 2025 Applicant :- Totaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pragati,Shaili Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 13.04.2023 in Complaint Case No.759/2023 and summoning order dated 29.08.2024 in Complaint Case No.131/2022 as well as quashing of the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 131 of 2022, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) F.T.C., Rampur (Babli Vs. Vikki & others), U/s 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 13.10.2022 by the O.P. No.2, who happens to be the wife of Vikky against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and uncle-father-in-law (the applicant herein) with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. No.2 was solemnized with Vikky on 15.02.2020, however, dowry was being demanded and she was maltreated. It was also alleged that on 23.09.2022, O.P. No.2 was administered bearing and she was locked in a room and on 27.09.2022, she was again locked in a room without there being any food given to her and the demand of dowry was one Wagon-R car, Rs.3,00,000/- and regularly she was being beaten. A complaint was lodged through registered post to S.S.P. Rampur on 12.10.2022 and then the complaint was lodged. On the basis of the statement of the complainant-wife under Section 200 CrPC, statements of Vijay Pal Singh, Chiranji, the applicant has been summoned along with other co-accused under Section 498-A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on 13.04.2023. Thereafter now, the applicant has been summoned on 29.08.2024 under Section 354 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that questioning the summoning orders, the applicant has filed the present application. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely roped in and he has been implicated in the criminality, as even otherwise the O.P. No.2 had left her matrimonial house and an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by the husband against the wife before the Court of Family Judge, Rampur. Submission is that the only fault, which was with the applicant was that he had gone to the house of O.P. No.2 and also held a Panchayat for getting the dispute amicably settled between the husband and the wife, but that became a motivating factor and a catalyst in lodging criminal proceeding. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there are ample evidences on record which prima facie suggests that the offences are made out against the applicant. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, the complaint lodged against the applicant and the other co-accused relatable to commission of the crime in the above noted penal sections being demand of dowry and maltreatment. Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC were recorded. As per the statement of the complainant under Section 200, not only the demand of dowry has been alleged, but it has also been alleged that the applicant herein had torn the clothes of O.P. No.2 and committed the offences. Further the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC of Vijay Pal Singh and Chiranji also supports the prosecution theory as encompassed in the complaint, while alleging that the applicant used to enter in the room of O.P. No.2 and exhibit indecent behaviour in that regard. The Court finds that the order summoning the applicant has been passed after recording the prima facie satisfaction that penal sections stand attracted. 7. Looking into the over all fact situation bearing in mind that there is no major variation or contradiction in the statements of witnesses vis-a-vis the complaint, this Court does not mind the present case to be a fit case to interfere at this stage and to throttle the investigation when the case is triable. Even otherwise there is no jurisdictional error pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly no case is made out. 8. The application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad