SMT. REKHA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13328 of 2025

Smt. Rekha Devi
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Rishabh Agarwal,         Shashank      Singh,
                                    Shobhit Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : G.A., Somdev Dixit

Court No. - 89
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private
respondent, and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned State counsel for the State-
respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an order or direction in the
nature of setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.09.2025 and 24.01.2025
passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court,
whereby the petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been
erroneously and illegally rejected. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to allow the petitioner's application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. and summon the proposed accused persons (respondent nos. 2 to 4)
to face trial, so as to ensure a fair, complete, and effective adjudication of the
case in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had lodged
Complaint Case No. 6577 of 2010 (Smt. Rekha vs. Vipin and Others). The
statements of the petitioner/complainant and her witnesses were recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. All the witnesses have consistently
alleged that all the accused persons, namely Vipin Kumar alias Ravi, Ram
Mohan, Shakuntala, Manju, and Bablu, were involved in demanding
additional dowry as well as harassing the petitioner on account of such
demand. He further submitted that after the commencement of trial, the
statements of the witnesses were again recorded, and all the witnesses
reiterated their earlier version. However, when an application under Section
                                                          A227 No. 13328 of 2025
                                2


319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 6577 of
2010, the same was dismissed without assigning any reason. The learned
Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to why it disbelieved the
statements of the witnesses when there is no inconsistency or infirmity
therein. He further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order dated
24.01.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 6577 of 2010, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2025 (Rekha Devi vs. State of U.P.
and Others). The said criminal revision was also dismissed on 30.09.2025,
holding the order of the learned Trial Court to be proper. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason for not summoning the
proposed accused, namely Shakuntala, Manju, Bablu, and Ram Mohan, if
the allegations in the statements were fully corroborated by the version made
in the complaint. He submitted that both the orders are illegal and liable to
be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that
general allegations have been made against them by the petitioner. He
submitted that Ram Mohan is the brother-in-law, Shakuntala is the mother-
in-law, and Manju is the sister-in-law of the petitioner, and that they were
not involved in the alleged offence in any manner. It was further submitted
that there were no specific allegations at the stage when the statements of the
complainant and her witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., and that the allegations were introduced later at the stage when their
statements were recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and after the framing of
charges. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly exercised its
discretion in dismissing the petitioner's application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the
learned Trial Court.

6. It is apparent that the allegation pertains to demand of dowry and
subsequent harassment on that account. It has become a common practice to
implicate the family members of the husband in cases involving allegations
of dowry demand and harassment. All the proposed accused persons are
close relatives of the husband, namely the brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and
mother-in-law of the complainant. The complaint filed along with this
petition also reveals that Shakuntala, the alleged mother-in-law, is about
sixty years of age. Similarly, Manju is a married sister-in-law. Hence,
making omnibus and bald allegations against all the family members of the
                                                                                        A227 No. 13328 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    husband does not inspire confidence.

                                    7. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, which were
                                    subsequently upheld by the learned Revisional Court, do not warrant any
                                    interference.

                                    8. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court are
                                    upheld, and the present petition is dismissed.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                        (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad