HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36261 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Mirza Ali Zulfaqar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri J.B. Singh, 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 26.08.2025 in Complaint Case no. 991 of 2024 (Sunita Sharma versus Lavkush Sen & others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj, pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Prayagraj. 3. The case of the applicants is that the proceedings under Section 173(4) of CrPC came to be lodged on 02.07.2024 against the applicants, who happens to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and jethani by the O.P. No.2/wife with the allegation that the marriage of O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 24.02.2019 and in the marriage, a four-wheeler, gold jewellery and expenditure of Rs.25,00,000/- was incurred. Allegation is that the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered and wanted a bigger SUV vehicle and on 14.07.2019, the applicant became pregnant and thereafter on 27.07.2021, a baby was born and on 01.09.2021, the applicants are alleged to have inflicted injuries upon O.P. No.2 and she was thrown out from her matrimonial house on 21.01.2024. The O.P. No.2 requested that she should be taken to her matrimonial house, but she was not allowed, hence the proceedings under Section 173(4) of BNSS. A notice came to be issued to applicants and the applicants submitted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lavkush Sen And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) their reply and post recording of the statement of O.P. No.2 under Section 223 of BNSS followed by statement under Section 225 of BNSS of Ramesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar, the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with 3/4 of D.P. Act. 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 more than one reason, firstly, once the proceedings stood emanated under the provisions of BNSS, then there was no question to summon the applicants under the provisions of CrPC, secondly, once an objection stood obtained from the applicants-accused and the applicants submitted their reply/objection, then at least it ought to have been recited and considered in the summoning order, which has not been done. Submission is that the very basic object of inviting objection stands extinguished, particularly when there is no discussion about the same. Further submission is that the entire allegations contained in the complaint are nothing but a bundle of lies, which have got no nexus with the reality and only general and omnibus allegations have been leveled. There is no date mentioned with regard to the demand of dowry. It is also contended that the statements made under Sections 223 and 225 of BNSS 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 statements under Sections 223 and 225 of BNSS, 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 NA528 No. 36261 of 2025 2 application by 16.10.2025 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 summoning order dated 26.08.2025 in Complaint Case no. 991 of 2024 (Sunita Sharma versus Lavkush Sen & others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj, pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Prayagraj. 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 19, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 36261 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad