HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35916 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1.Heard Sri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire prceedings as well as the summoning order dated 18.12.2024 in Complaint Case No. 250 of 2024, Rinki Kumari v. Moti Lal Chaudhari and others, under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act., P.S. Cantt. District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (applicant herein) and sister-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 stood solemnized on 23.11.2010 with Vinod Kumar. In the marriage, huge expenditures were incurred, Rs. 5,00,00/- cash was also offered. However, on 10.08.2017, the allegation is that the husband of opposite party no.2 as well as the applicant and the other accused arraigned in the compliant, demanded additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,00/-. On 10.09.2017, the allegation is that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to assault and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house, compelling her to file an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 479 of 2017 under Section 498A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and thereafter, the matter was pacified, a settlement came into existence and the opposite party no.2 came back to her matrimonial house and on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Pratap Singh, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dinesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 17.08.2021 again she was assaulted and thrown out with a child aged about 13 years and she is residing in her maternal house since 17.08.2021 and on 25.03.2024, the husband of the opposite party no.2 died. Thus, the opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial house and when she open her room then the trunks were found to be an open condition and the valuables were not there and on being questioned, the sister-in-laws uttered that they had been distributed between themselves. A complaint has also been lodged on 10.04.2024 before the police, followed by a complaint. Post recording of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2, Rajiv Kumar, Ashish Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant came to be summoned on 18.12.2024 under Section 498A, 406 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D. P. Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that totally omnibus and general allegations have been levelled without there being any specific allegations. Submission is that though incidents have been shown to have been occurred but not even a single word is against the applicant and further without there being any allegation about the commission of the said offences upon the applicant, the applicant could not have been summoned. Contention is that merely because the applicant happens to be an in-law in the shape of brother-in-law, he has been entangled as he has done nothing so as to create any occasion for commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that further the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. are tailor-made and the applicant without there being any allegation against him has been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant also contends that the Court below in a routine manner has summoned the applicant without there being any material so as to do so. He further submits that the applicant is having a separate living. He next submits that the applicant shall be filing a discharge application but till the discharge is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against him. 5. Sri S. K. Singh, learned A.G.A. while countering the submissions so made by the learned Counsel for the applicant has sought to contend that this Court at the stage may not interfere, particularly at the stage of summoning order. Once the question whether the applicant is having NA528 No. 35916 of 2025 2 separate living or not is a subject matter of trial. According to him, in case the applicant is having a separate living and as alleged by him that there is no allegation against him, thus, it is for the applicant to seek discharge. 6. Looking into the overall fact and situation including the nature of the allegations, stand taken by the respective parties, the application stands disposed of directing the applicant to submit discharge application by 17.10.2025. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. The protection so accorded shall be subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in the order. September 18, 2025 Vijay NA528 No. 35916 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad