Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81134 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16278 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar and 2 others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Mishra,Prem Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Shanker Mishra along with Sri Chandra Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Bhuval Vishwakarma, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 45146 of 2024 (Diksha Vs. Raj Kumar and others) under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Jangipur, District Ghazipur as well as summoning order dated 27.02.2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghazipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, being the wife of the applicant no. 1, daughter-in-law of the applicants no. 2 and 3 on 31.07.2023 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 27.04.2018 and gifts worth Rs. 2,25,000/- were offered along with certain ornaments at the time of the marriage. However, the applicants were not satisfied with the gifts so offered and they demanded dowry to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a bike. Despite request being made not to make the said demand as the financial position of the parents of the opposite party no. 2 was not as such to fulfill the said demand but the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to maltreatment. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 01.11.2022 at 10:00 in the morning, the applicants herein hurled abuses and divested the opposite party no. 2 from her valuables and had thrown away the opposite party no. 2 from the matrimonial house with a direction that the entry of the opposite party no. 2 would be only on those contingencies when the demand of dowry would be fulfilled. The opposite party no. 2 further alleges that she made a phone call to her parents and relatives who came to the rescue but nothing happened, a complaint was also lodged before police but, no action was taken. In the background of the said fact, proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was initiated and so much so, the complaint was also lodged on 28.06.2023 before the S.P. As nothing was done so the instant complaint has been lodged. The Court below, on the basis of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., had summoned the applicants on 27.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the entire allegations so sought to be levelled do not inflict any criminality and the applicants has at no point of time demanded any dowry less to say about maltreatment and hurling of abuses and administering beating. 4. Submission is that on 01.11.2022, there had been no such incident so alleged and further the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.07.2024 and further proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also initiated by the opposite party no.2 against her husband applicant no. 1, wherein a different story had been given. Submission is that the entire allegations are nothing but bundle of lies and a concocted story so as to somewhat implicate and rope in the applicants and put them to the terms which is to be dictated by the opposite party no. 2. Lastly, it is submitted that the summoning order is a mechanical one passed on mere asking without due application of mind. 5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that a conjoint reading of the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. itself reveals that there is no contradiction or variation so as to completely overrule the possibility of attraction of the penal provisions. According to him, the court below while summoning the applicants had taken into account the statements vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint and had summoned the applicants. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. At this stage, in the present proceedings, challenge has been raised to the summoning order whereby the applicants have been summoned under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. There are certain parameters which have to be adopted while coming to a conclusion as to whether the complaint so lodged by the complainant is frivolous or the case is triable. Amongst others, one of the factors would inevitably be the nature of the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. In case there is no variation or inconsistency in the statements vis-a-vis complaint then obviously, the matter becomes triable in that regard. Adopting the said principles in the facts of the case, it is apparent that in the complaint dowry was demanded to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a bike. An incident has also been narrated in the complaint dated 01.11.2022 at 10 O' clock wherein the applicants acted as a gang and not only threatened but also demanded dowry and abuses were hurled. Even, in fact, the allegations are to the effect that the applicants forced the opposite party no. 2 to leave the house. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also narrates the said incident dated 01.11.2022 followed by the statement of the PW 1 under Section 202 of Akhilesh Kumar which also recites the incident dated 01.11.2022 and of P.W. 2 under Section 202 of Dinesh Kumar which also support the prosecution theory. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint is frivolous particularly when what is required to be seen is the fact as to whether there is any variation or inconsistency in the statement since the same is lacking thus, the case becomes triable. As regards the dismissal of the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act is concerned, the same would not be a factor to throttle the investigation particularly it might be a matter of defence at the stage when the trial commences and a decision would be taken as to whether in the case of acquittal or conviction. As regards the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same is a matter relatable to grant of maintenance, the said case may have its own strength post decision in the trial and the same cannot be considered at this stage. As regards the submission that the dowry has been demanded after five years of marriage is concerned, the same is a factor which would obviously need consideration at the time of the trial with regard to its velocity and magnitude while taking a decision as to whether the case is of conviction or acquittal. 8. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present proceedings, the application is consigned to record. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 10. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that, in case, applicants move appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement on bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with law of the land. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad