Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107959 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21571 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Singh,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Court No. Vth, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.188 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), under Section 498- A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, who happen to be husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and others on 12.06.2023 with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. No.3, daughter of O.P. No.2, was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022, the O.P. No.3 had gone to her matrimonial house, however, the applicants herein had demanded dowry and when the same was not being satisfied, then all sorts of harassments, physical, social and mental, were being extended. The information regarding the atrocities being made pursuant to the demand of dowry was apprised to O.P. No.2 telephonically by O.P. No.3 and on 18.02.2023 when the O.P. No.3 was all alone in the house, then the applicants herein joined a gang with pre- determined mind entered the room of O.P. No.3 and directed the O.P. No.3 to make a call to O.P. No.2 for satisfying the demand of dowry and on reluctance being shown by O.P. No.3 abuses were hurled and her stridhan was taken away assault was being made with the aid of legs and fists, her hair was also caught hold and she was left out of her matrimonial house and on 16.05.2023 when the marriage of the devar of O.P. No.3 was being solemnized, information was given to everybody except O.P. No.3 and on 17.05.2023, again O.P. No.3 was thrown out of her matrimonial house. 4. 4. Post lodging of the complaint and recording of the statement under Section 200 CrPC of Vinod, 202 CrPC of Vishal Jaiswal and Vaishali, the applicants came to be summoned on 02.01.2025 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the O.P. No.2 as per the complaint, are the residents of Jaunpur and the applicants of Prayagraj, thus the Magistrate before summoning the applicants, ought to have complied with the provisions under Section 202 CrPC while instituting an enquiry. Further submission is that there are general and omnibus allegations without there being any specific and the applicants have been summoned in routine manner, there is no description of the items which were being demanded as dowry. It is also contended that there is no injury report so as to show that there is any truth in the allegations of the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand opposes the application while contending that there are no material contradiction in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC vis-à-vis allegations in the complaint. 6. I have heard submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully 7. In the present case at the instance of the applicant, challenge has been raised to the summoning order. There are certain broad para- meters, which have to be adhered to in order to determine as to whether the summoning order suffers from illegality or not. Amongst others, one of the criteria would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint vis-à-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. Once there are no material contradictions in the allegations and then the issue becomes triable, as the Court is not required to delve into the veracity of the allegations. Apparently, in the case in hand there are allegations leveled against the applicants with regard to demand of dowry, dates and instances have also been made. The question as to whether which item was being demanded is not required to be gone into at the stage of summoning. Moreover the Court finds that instances have been given of dated 18.02.2023, 16.05.2023, 17.05.2023. Further the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC of the witnesses also cannot be said to be having material contradictions. 8. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that there has been violation of Section 202 CrPC is concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions submits that the applicants s shall be preferring discharge application and till discharge application is decided, protection be accorded. 10. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same. 11. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of discharge application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land. 12. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants with respect to summoning order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Court No. Vth, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.188 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur. 13. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad