HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32755 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, who are five in number and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 24.06.2025 in Complaint Case No. 1689 of 2023 (Smt. Saroj Versus Krishna and others) Under Section 498A, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant No. 1,4 and 5 and Under Section 498A, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant No. 2 and 3, Police Station Didauli, District-Amroha, which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Amroha. 3. The case of the applicants is that on 13.12.2023, the O.P. No.2 who happens to be the wife of the applicant no.1 proceeded to lodge a complaint against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant no.1 is the husband of O.P. No.2, marriage whereof was solemnized on 26.11.2017 and so far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they happen to be the brother-in- law of O.P. No.2, applicant no.4 is mother-in-law and applicant no.5 is the wife of applicant no.3. Further allegation is that though in the marriage so solemnized between O.P. No.2 and applicant no.1, huge expenditures were incurred and gifts were also offered, but the same were not as per the expectations of the applicants, as their demand was much more to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash, a house and a four-wheeler and constant pressure was being exerted to satisfy the demand and when the said demand was not satisfied, then O.P. No.2 claimed that she was subjected to mental and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh, Vishal Kumar Sonkar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Krishna And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) physical atrocities. Even on 01.10.2022, the allegation is that O.P. No.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house, however, on 08.10.203, when she was in her parents house then the applicants barged in the house and thereafter assaulted and hurled abuses and maltreated her and committed violence, pursuant whereto the complaint was lodged. Thereafter post- recording of the statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 CrPC, Ram Singh, Mahesh son of Ram Singh and Ram Autar under Section 202 CrPC, the applicants came to be summoned initially under Sections 323, 506, 498- A IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, thereafter, applicants preferred a revision, wherein the matter was remitted back on 11.09.2024 and thereafter on 24.06.2025 the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and applicants no.2 and 3 under Section 354 IPC. 4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the applicants have not committed any offence, the entire allegations contained in the complaint regarding demand of dowry are nothing but a bundle of lies, which have got no nexus with the reality. Submission is that only general and omnibus allegations have been leveled. There is no date mentioned with regard to the demand of dowry and further so far as the allegation with regard to the Section 354 IPC, there are no evidence in that regard and further there are no instances. It is also contended that though it is alleged that O.P. No.2 was put to strangulation, but there is nothing on record to suggest that there is any injury report and that is why they have not been summoned under Section 323 of IPC. It is also contended that the statements made under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC are tailormade just in order to suit the circumstances and the court below without recording any prima facie satisfaction, regarding the attraction of the penal sections has summoned the applicants in a routine manner. Learned counsel for the applicants further as per the instructions submits that the applicant shall be filing a discharge application. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2 on the other hand submit that perusal of the allegations in the complaint, vis-a-vis the NA528 No. 32755 of 2025 2 statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, nowhere show that there is any material contradiction or variation, which goes to the root of the matter which makes the case triable, however, he submits that once the applicants seek to file discharge application, he has no objection. 7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and looking into the nature of allegations and stands of the parties, the application is disposed of directing the applicants to file the proceedings by way of discharge application by 26.09.2025 and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall decide the same with most expedition. 8. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants with respect to the summoning order dated 24.06.2025 in Complaint Case No. 1689 of 2023 (Smt. Saroj Versus Krishna and others) Under Section 498A, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant No. 1,4 and 5 and Under Section 498A, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicant No. 2 and 3 Police Station Didauli, District-Amroha, which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Amroha. 9. The protection accorded to the applicants 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. September 1, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 32755 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad