HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 106 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. The present application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No., Etawah, whereby the accused persons- opposite party nos.2 to 10 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them in Criminal Complaint No.814 of 2025 (Lala Ram v. Daya Shanker & ors) under Sections 498A, 452, 403, 406 & 420 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Etawah . Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that after marriage of applicant- Vandana d/o Late Lala Ram with Ahivaran Singh @ Sobaran Singh, she was maltreated for demand of dowry and was subjected to cruelty. He submits that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry including cash, motorcycle, household articles and gold jewellery etc. were given to the accused persons but they found the same to be insufficient and faced with this harassment, the complainant Lala Ram (now deceased) tried to make the accused understand about his financial incapability to meet their demand but they all did not change their behaviour. Learned counsel while referring to paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment pointed out the allegations made by Lala Ram in the criminal complaint and argued that the material witnesses including Vandana have supported the prosecution case despite that, the trial court proceeded to acquit him. He submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nagendra Kumar, R.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lala Ram .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Opposite Party(s) evidence on record and calls for interference by this Court, therefore, he prays for grant of leave to appeal. Upon hearing learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the marriage of Vandana was performed on 11.05.2006 with Ahivaran Singh @ Sobaran Singh, but the husband was not made an accused in criminal complaint and the complaint was directed against opposite party no.2, Daya Shankar (father-in-law), his six sons (opposite party nos.3 to 8) and his two daughters-in-law (opposite party nos.9 & 10). The complainant- Lala Ram though was examined as a witness under Section 244 CrPC wherein he deposed that the accused persons were treating his daughter with cruelty for demand of dowry and his daughter was compelled to leave the matrimonial home who was residing with him. Later, PW-1 died and he was represented by PW-2, Vandana being the victim and she in her statement recorded under Section 246 Cr.P.C., admitted that she has not leveled any allegation against her husband and even her husband is not residing with her who is a resident of Delhi. She categorically stated that whenever she calls her husband he comes to her and further admitted that previously, she had implicated the accused persons in a case of robbery also. Most importantly, the allegations of beatings resulting in injuries to PW-1 Vandana is not supported with any evidence and she admitted that the medical evidence regarding her admission in the hospital is not produced by her. Thus, a reading of the evidence of this material witness itself shows that her depositions suffers from material discrepancies and does not prove the charges against the accused beyond doubt. A perusal of the impugned judgement dated 24.03.2025 would reveal that the trial court has analysed the prosecution evidence on record while acquitting the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and no case is made out for grant of leave. Resultantly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2025 Prachi NA419 No. 106 of 2025 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad