Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121279 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24947 of 2025 Applicant :- Mo Tariq Jamal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of the compliant case No. 166 of 2020, as well as summoning order dated 13.06.2025 passed by learned trial court in Compliant Case No. 166 of 2020, under sections 323, 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, (Saba Bano Versus Mo. Tariq Jamal and others) Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, which is pending in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), New Court No. 10, Jaunpur. 3.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are husband and mother-in-law and the marriage of the O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with applicant no.1 10 years ago from the date of lodging of proceedings under Section 156(3) of CrPC under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegation contained in the complaint is false, incorrect and a bundle of lies, particularly when post-lapsing of a period of 10 years and with the wedlock, existence of a baby would be sufficient to demolish the prosecution theory, as it is quire improbable and impossible even to believe even for a moment that dowry would be demanded. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is neither any injury report with respect to the incident dated 09.02.2020, when the applicants came to be approached the maternal house of O.P. No.2 and took the O.P. No.2 and child with them and thereafter, with the help of stole tried to strangulate O.P. No.2 and administered beating. Submission is that statement under Section 200 of CrPC of O.P. No.2 under Section 202 of CrPC of Mohammad Arif and Nafees Hasan are tailormade just in order to falsely implicate the applicants. He further submits that the court below as a matter of routine has summoned the applicants without recording any prima facie satisfaction about the application and the attraction of the penal provisions. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not willing to go for mediation. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, vis-a-vis the nature of the allegations of the complaint, it is more than evident that offences are made out. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 6. Apparently, the applicants herein are husband and mother-in- law. The O.P. No.2 has made pinpointed allegations against the applicants as there are no material contradictions in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. Apart from the same, it is the allegation of O.P. No.2 that with respect to the demand so raised about dowry with respect to a byke, the O.P. No.2 was assaulted in the year 2013, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Thereafter proceedings under Section 125 CrPC stood initiated being Case no.376 of 2013, wherein an exparte maintenance order was passed and since payments were not made, proceedings under Section 128 CrPC also underwent. Further there is a pinpointed allegation regarding the incident dated 09.02.2020 when the O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house, was in her maternal house, then the applicants came there and took the O.P. No.2 and child while ensuring the they would not demand any dowry and further they will look after the O.P. No.2, but the O.P. No.2 was thrashed, assaulted and even an attempt was made to strangulate. Since there are no material contradiction in the statement under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC, vis-a-vis the complaint so lodged against the applicants by O.P. No.2 and this Court at the stage of summoning is not required to go into the merits of the charges, thus this Court finds that the prima facie offences are made out and the case is triable. 7. Accordingly interference is declined. 8. At this stage, as per instructions learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants shall approach the court below for enlargement on bail. 9. 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 bail 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. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad