HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33581 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint case no.39 of 2019 (Rinku Gupta Versus Yogesh Urf Karugupta and others) as well as impugned Summoning Order dated 24.07.2019, Passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/J.M. Jalesar District Etah. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants who happened to be the husband, father-in- law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 whose marriage stood solemnized on 22.06.2018 wherein expenditures were incurred to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs and gifts were offered, however, the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered and the demand was much more and it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 was assaulted, abuses were hurled, she was maltreated and on 15.01.2019, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house, a complaint was lodged on 16.01.2019 followed by proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 18.01.2019 and post recording of the statements under Section 200 of the complainant, the applicants came to be summoned on 24.07.2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Singh, Prabhat Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yogesh Urf Karu Gupta And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are not committed any offence, there is no question of demand of dowry, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled without being any specific allegations and iota of evidence demand being raised on the basis of the tailor-made statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned without there being any recording of prima facie satisfaction of the application of penal provisions. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that the summoning order dated 24.07.2019 and the present application has been presented before the Court in the month of August, 2025 more than six years have passed. Thus, this Court may not interfere at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Apparently, the proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. lodged against the opposite party no. 2 on 18.01.2019 came to be transformed into a complaint case and the applicant came to be summoned on 24.07.2019. The present application has been preferred in the year 2025 after the period of six years, there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in approaching this Court. It is also not the case that they were not aware about the said proceedings as there was no averments in the present application. 8. Cumulatively, analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the summoning order is dated 24.07.2019 and the present application has been presented in the month of August, 2025 and a specific query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicants, it has been apprised that the applicant no. 1 is already contesting the matter, thus, this Court does not find the present case is to be fit case for interference, accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 9. Leaving it open to the applicants to take legal recourse to the remedy as available under the Act. September 3, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 33581 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad