Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146269 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31408 of 2025 Applicant :- Hari Ram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Singh,Lalit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri K.K. Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order Dt. 26.07.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 910/2016; Shyama Vs. Manoj & others, Under Sections 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat by means of which the applicants have been summoned under Sections 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act., and also quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 910/2016; Shyama Vs. Manoj & others Under Section 498A, 323 IPC & % D.P. Act., Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat District Kanpur Dehat. 3. The case of the applicants is that complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 wife on 22.4.2016 against the applicants, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and the non applicant who are arraigned as an accused in the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., husband, Manoj Kumar allegation is that the marriage of the O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with Manoj on 18.5.2011 however gifts were lacs of rupees were offered in the marriage which inclusive of Rs.50,000/- in cash and other artilces which are being generally used in a household however, the allegation is that the applicants used to demand dowry of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and a four-wheeler and her parents shown their reluctance and incapability to fulfill the demand then physical and mental harassment was being meted to the opposite party no.2 thus a complaint came to be lodged thereafter post recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. followed by of Rama Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant came to be summoned on 26.7.2019, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act. 4. Questioning the summoning the applicants have filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the allegation so sought to be levelled against the applicants are general omnibus and no date has been mentioned when the said demand of dowry was being made and further the deposition of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. itself shows that the allegation has been made that the husband of the opposite party no.2 had thrown out the opposite party no.2 of their matrimonial house on 13.11.2015. 6. Submission is that first of all the allegation does not find place in the complaint and further it is against the husband and not against the applicants. Further submission is that the applicants being father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law are entitled to the benefits of protection as per the order passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. and further submission is that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are tailormade just in order to suit the prosecution case and the court below has summoned applicants without recording any prima facie satisfaction about the attraction of the penal sections in a routine manner. Learned counsel for the applicants as per the instructions, submits that the applicants shall be preferring discharge application seeking discharge. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the perusal of the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, prima facie, there are no material contradictions or variations. Merely because applicants happen to be father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, it would not absolve the possibility of commission of crime, particularly when each and every case depends on its own facts, however, according to him, it is always open for the applicants to avail the remedy of filing discharge application. 8. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, and looking into the over all facts situation, stand taken by the applicants as well as the nature of the allegations, without entering into the merits, the application stands disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 12.09.2025. On the receipt of the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application. 9. Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action be taken against the applicants with respect to the order Dt. 26.07.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, District Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 910/2016; Shyama Vs. Manoj & others, Under Section 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act., Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 910/2016; Shyama Vs. Manoj & others, Under Section 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act., Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, District Kanpur Dehat. 10. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad