HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5034 of 2024 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Counsel for applicant, Mr. Umesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet dated 02/05/2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 56 of 2023, under Sections 323, 498A, and 506 1.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, State vs. Jitendra Kashyap, pending in the court of A.C.J. (Junior Division) CR-3/J.M., Jhansi, P.S.- Baruasagar, District-Jhansi and also quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 29/09/2023 and Bailble Warrant dated 15.12.2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) C.R- 3/ J.M, Jhansi." 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 09.02.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The applicant neither harassed nor demanded dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false and baseless allegations. A few months after the marriage, opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial home and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balbir Singh, Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Umesh Kumar Tripathi Jitendra Kashyap .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) began residing at her parental home. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. Opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 56 of 2023,under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Baruasagar, District Jhasi against the applicant. During the investigation, the statements of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance thereof, although, no prima facie case is made out against him. Therefore, the summoning order and the entire proceedings may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that, upon perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the opposite party no.2, and the witnesses, and the material collected during the course of investigation, a prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant. Accordingly, entire proceedings cannot be quashed. The opposite party no.2 was brutally beaten by the applicant for fulfilling the additional demand of dowry, therefor, this application may be dismissed. 5. As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 56 of 2023,under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Baruasagar, District Jhansi against the applicant alleging that a few days after the marriage, the applicant began demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and one four-wheeler vehicle as additional dowry. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29.09.2023. 6. Upon the perusal of the material on record and considering the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be considered in light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) A482 No. 5034 of 2024 2 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. September 21, 2026 Vijay A482 No. 5034 of 2024 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad