POOJA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 265 of 2024

Pooja Singh
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :   Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A., Malik Juned Ahmad

Court No. - 93
           HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated
27.09.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Nagina, District- Bijnor, in Criminal
Complaint Case No.1397 of 2014 Pooja Singh Vs. Vipin Kumar and others
by which complaint case has been dismissed and the accused
person/opposite party have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498-
A, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police
Station- Nagina, District- Bijnor.

3. The complaint case was filed with allegation that the complainant, Pooja
Singh, was married to opposite party No.2- Vipin Kumar on 08.10.2008. Her
husband, Vipin Kumar, mother-in-law- Mungiya and brother-in-law-
Virendra demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakh as dowry and subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry.
She was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 17.04.2014 and thereafter
she was residing with her parents. After a few days, on 23.04.2014, accused
persons came to her parental house and put their demand and abused her.
She was again assaulted by them and sustained injuries. They also extended
threats to kill her.

4. During the course of proceedings, it was admitted that no medical
examination or injury report was produced. The explanation offered by the
complainant was that the injuries were minor (gum chot) and, therefore, no
                                                           A378 No. 265 of 2024
                                2


medical examination was conducted. The accused persons in their defence,
brought on record documentary evidences to show that proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., being case No.423/2014 was earlier contested between
parties, wherein the Family Court recorded a finding that the complainant
herself had treated the opposite party with cruelty. It was further shown that
matrimonial Case No.307/2015 under Section 13 of Family Marriage Act for
dissolution of marriage was decided by the Family Court and by judgment
and decree dated 08.10.2018, the marriage between parties stood dissolved.

5. The trial court upon appreciation of evidence also noticed material
contradictions in the version of the complainant, while the complaint alleges
a demand of Rs.3 lakh. The oral evidence referred to a demand of Rs.5 lakh
in which Rs.3 lakh was given to opposite party. No explanation worthy
acceptance was offered for this contradiction. No documentary evidence has
been placed on record regarding receipt of Rs.3 lakh or any other amount of
money or any other valuable security by opposite party to satisfy the
requirements of Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

6. This Court finds that the allegations in the complaint are required to be
assessed in the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial discord and prior
adjudications by the Family Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly cautioned that criminal proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C.
and allied provisions are often invoked as a pressure tactic after matrimonial
relationship has irretrievably broken down.

7. In Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that exaggerated and omnibus allegations,
particularly against family members, have become a matter of serious
concern, and the Court must exercise grave caution before permitting
criminal prosecution to continue. Similarly, in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 6 SCC 599, it was held vague
and inconsistent allegations arising out of matrimonial disputes should not
be permitted to result in a criminal trial.

8. The absence of medical corroboration in a case alleging physical assault,
coupled with contradictory versions regarding dowry demand, assumes
added significance when viewed alongside, the prior judicial findings
holding the complainant responsible for cruelty and the subsequent
dissolution of marriage. These circumstances, lend support to the conclusion
                                                                                                A378 No. 265 of 2024
                                                                    3


                                    that criminal complaint was pursued more as a continuation matrimonial
                                    animosity rather than a bona fide prosecution.

                                    9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
                                    (2002) 2 SCC 636 has held that criminal proceedings should not be allowed
                                    to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution especially where
                                    the dispute is a predominantal of a civil or a matrimonial nature.

                                    10. Learned Trial Court upon holistic appreciation of the evidence and
                                    surrounding circumstances, has taken a possible and legally sustainable
                                    view. No perversity, illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice has been
                                    demonstrated which may warrant interference by this Court while exercising
                                    jurisdiction under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

                                    11. It is well settled that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of
                                    innocence and leave to appeal can be granted only where the findings are
                                    wholly unreasonable or perverse, which is not the case here. The application
                                    under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

                                    12. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is
                                    dismissed.

                                    February 3, 2026
                                    P. Pandey
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad