Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84810 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14784 of 2025 Applicant :- Parmanand Alias Param And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the complaint case no. 674/2024 (Smt. Bhavna vs. Parmanand @ Param and others) against the applicant no.1 and 2 u/s 498A,323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and against the applicant no.3 u/s 498A,323,504,506,354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mahila Thana Baghpat, district Baghpat, pending in the court of Civil Judge J.D./F.T.C, Baghpat. 3. The case of the applicants is that the applicant No. 1 is the husband of the opposite party No. 2, married whereof solemnized on 15.02.2019 whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3 are mother-in-law and brother-in-law. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complaint is stated to have been lodged on 19.06.2024 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. under Section 498A, 323, 452, 354, 427, 406, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act with an allegation that post marriage, demand of dowry was being made on account of non-fulfillment of the same, the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to maltreatment, beating and hurling of abuses. As per the complaint on 30.04.2024, the applicants herein along-with other accused being unhappy with non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, administered beating and hurled abuses and had thrown the opposite party no. 2 and her daughters who are minor out of the matrimonial house and so much so on 02.06.2024 at 10 o'clock in the morning, when the opposite party no. 2 along with her father were having breakfast then the applicants came there and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and a four wheeler on account of reluctance being shown by the opposite party no. 2 with the help of stole an indecent act was committed for throttling the neck of the opposite party no. 2 and also administered beating with the aid of fist and legs. The statement under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter on 14.10.2024, the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C., J.M., Baghpat proceeded to summon the applicant nos. 1 and 2, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicant No. 3, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint is nothing but bundle of lies as the applicants have been intentionally roped in, as they had no at point of time demanded any dowry. Further it is implorable that dowry would be demanded at a stage, wherein with the wedlock of the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no.2, there happens to be two daughters. It is also submitted that there is no mention about the nature of the injuries so sustained by the opposite party no. 2 and it is further unbelievable that on 02.06.2024, the applicants would go to the house of the father of the opposite party no. 2 and commit such offenses. It is also submitted that no offences under Section 354 IPC stands attracted against the applicant no. 3. It is, thus, prayed that the entire proceedings including the summoning order be set aside 5. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad who appears for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C, it is apparent that prime facie offences are made out and there is no contraction or variation in the statement of the witnesses vis-a-vis the complaint. 6. Learned AGA has adopted the submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. In the present case, at the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the summoning order, there are certain broad parameters which are used as a tool to determine as to whether the summoning order suffers from any legal infirmity or not. One of the yardsticks would inevitably be the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. In case, the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the allegations and allegations are such which would even in fact on prima facie basis reveal that the case is trialable then it would not be appropriate for the Court to throttle the investigation. 9. Applying the said principles of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that allegations are regarding demand of dowry and the incident is dated 30.04.2024 and 02.06.2024. Pin-pointed allegations have been made in the complaint and so much so, the complainant in a statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C has also supported the prosecution version while pinpointing the involvement of the allegations applicants in the incident dated 30.04.2024 and 02.06.2024. 10. Apart from the same, there happens to be the statement of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. being Raj Kumar who also supports the prosecution theory while alleging that on two occasions i.e. on 30.04.2024 and 02.06.2024, opposite party no.2 was subjected to beating maltreatment, hurling of abuses and for the demand of dowry which was in the shape of certain amounts in cash and a four wheeler. So much so, the statement of the opposite party no. 2 also attributes criminality against applicant no. 3 under Section 354 IPC. 11. Once the position being so, it would not be appropriate for this Court to throttle the investigation at this stage, particularly, when the case is trialable. As regards, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was lodged on 19.06.2024 relatable to the incident date 30.04.2024 and 02.06.2024 with delay is concerned, the same is at best a matter of defence, consideration whereof would be at this stage, when the trial commences, when a decision is to be taken whether the accused are to be convicted or acquitted. This Court at this stage is not required to delve into factual issues. 12. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application stands rejected. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad