KAMENDRA SINGH @ BETU AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
                   ALLAHABAD
       APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11273 of 2017

Kamendra Singh @ Betu And 5 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun      Kumar     Tiwari,
                             Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
                          : G.A., Vinod Singh
Court No. - 83
   HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2.This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 0689 of 2017 in pursuance of
the Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2016 dated 08.12.2026 in Case Crime No. 019 of
2016 under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Mahila Thana Orai, District Jalaun.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that in this case the
applicant no.1-Kamendra Singh @ Betu is husband of opposite party no.2-
Smt. Unnati Chauhan. The applicant nos. 2 to 6 are father-in-law, mother-in-
law, grandfather, grandmother and dewar of the opposite party no.2. He
further argued that marriage of the opposite party no.2 was performed with
the applicant no.1 on 05.05.2015 in Orai. Thereafter, dispute arose between
husband and wife and the present first information report was lodged by the
opposite party no.2-wife herself making vague and general allegations
against the husband and all other members of the family regarding demand
of Alto Car and harassment. He also argued that father-in-law and mother-
in-law were living in Orai and grandfather and grandmother were living at
                                                          A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                2


Lucknow. The opposite party no. 2 was living at Lucknow with grandfather
and grandmother where her husband was also living. The opposite party no.2
came to know with a message in the mobile phone of her husband that he
had relationship with a girl working in Airtel Company, namely, Jyoti and
she made a protest on which her husband beat her and then left her in Orai
which shows that there was a dispute between the husband and wife, as a
result, present first information report was lodged by the wife against all the
members of the family of husband. He further submitted that father-in-law
and mother-in-law were not living with them and they never subjected her to
cruelty or harassment. The allegations in this regard are vague and general.
No specific allegation has been made against any of the applicant. He also
submitted that application on the part of applicant-1 husband was dismissed
at the very outset and he is facing trial. So far as applicant nos. 2 to 6 are
concerned, they being members of the family of husband and having vague
and general allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment are
being subjected to torture by the opposite party no.2, due to matrimonial
dispute between husband and wife. In case proceedings are allowed to go on
against the applicants no. 2 to 6 those are members of the family of the
husband, it will amount to abuse of the process of the Court, therefore,
request to quash the entire proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 6. He
relied his argument on the observations made in the case of Geeta Mehrotra
and another Versus State of U.P. and another 2012 LawSuit (SC) 716
and in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4069 of 2024, decided
on 24.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer as
aforesaid and contended that there are allegation regarding demand of Alto
Car and harassment against all the members of the family. After marriage,
the opposite party no.2 was living with the family at Orai where she was
subjected to harassment by father-in-law and mother-in-law and other
members of the family of the husband. When she started living at Lucknow
even then grandfather and grandmother harassed her continuously in relation
to demand of Alto Car then she lodged the present first information report
against them. He also contended that at this stage, no mini trial can be
conducted but only prima facie case against the applicants is to be seen. He
relied his arguments on the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
                                                                A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                    3


the case of Muskan Versus Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others 2025 O
Supreme (SC) 1889.

5. There is sufficient material to establish prima facie case against the
applicants on the basis of which learned court concerned took cognizance of
the offence with proper application of judicial mind. There is no any
infirmity of illegality in the order.

6. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), relevant para no. 17, 19 and 20 are
extracted below:-

"17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold
that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared
to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as
possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal
basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the
appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in
the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under
Section 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the
married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the
family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were
pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the
ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and
the appeal was allowed.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a
tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding".

20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3
SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
                                                                 A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                     4


Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree
that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down
in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that
process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.

7. In the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal (supra), relevant para nos. 22 is
extracted below:-

"22. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote the observations of
this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it
was observed:

“27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out
of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. We say so for
the reason that while the complainant/respondent No.2 has made vague and omnibus
allegations against the accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify the same
                                                                 A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                    5


before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among
people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly
criminal courts.

30.The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to
curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise
Page 22 of 26 in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing
discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for
unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making
vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting
tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section
498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with
the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.

31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in
terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain
silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal
proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not
encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second
respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a
woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”

8. In the case of Muskan (supra), relevant para no. 22 is extracted below:-

"22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, it is
settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to quashing is
somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is
available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the
                                                          A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                  6


power under Section 482 should not be exercised."

9. In the present case in hand, the contents of the first information report
disclosed that the opposite party no.2 was married to applicant no.1 on
05.05.2015. She was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of Alto Car
and she was not being given sufficient food. When after four days of the
marriage, her brother came, she was sent with him by taking of jewellery,
thereafter, she went to live with her husband at Lucknow in the house of
grandfather and grandmother. She saw the message in the mobile phone of
her husband and came to know that he was in relationship with a girl
working in Airtel company, namely, Jyoti prior to her marriage. She made
protest, on which her husband beat her and left her to Orai, as a result,
present first information report was lodged by her. From the contents of the
first information report as aforementioned, there is general allegation against
all the members of the family of the husband regarding demand of Alto Car
and harassment that is within four days of the marriage and thereafter, she
was living at Lucknow with her husband in the house of his grandfather and
grandmother. The dispute arose between the husband and wife when
message was seen in his mobile phone by the wife related to a girl working
in Airtel Company, namely, Jyoti on which she made protest and husband
beat her.

10. In the statement of the opposite party no.2 under Section 161 Cr. P.C. as
recorded by the investigating officer, there are general allegation, but no any
specific role against any of the members of the family of the husband. There
is no any other material on record to show that any such demand or
harassment was specifically made by the father-in-law, mother-in-law,
grand father-in-law, grand mother-in-law and dever of the wife-opposite
party no.2.

11.When all these facts are taken together, it emerges that there was dispute
between husband and wife when she saw the message in mobile phone
related to a girl working in Airtel Company, she lodged present FIR against
the husband roping all other members of the family. In considered opinion of
this Court and keeping in view the observations made by Apex Court in the
case of Geeta Mehrotra, Shobhit Kumar Mittal               and Muskan, if
the proceedings in the present case are allowed to go on against all the
                                                                                             A482 No. 11273 of 2017
                                                                    7


                                    members of the family of the husband, it will be clear abuse of the process of
                                    the Court, therefore, the proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 are
                                    liable to be quashed.

                                    12. Accordingly, the application is allowed and entire proceedings in Case
                                    No. 0689 of 2017 in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2016 dated
                                    08.12.2026 in Case Crime No. 019 of 2016 under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C.
                                    and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Orai, District Jalaun are
                                    quashed against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 only.




                                                                                (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    T.S.




Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad