AKHILESH AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1827 of 2017

Akhilesh And 5 Others
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Janardan Yadav,             Subhash      Chand
                                Kanaujia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Azaz Ahmad, G.A.

Court No. - 83
            HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

List revisited. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in
the revised call except learned A.G.A.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well learned A.G.A. and perused
the record.

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
proceedings of Case No. 2396 of 2016 (State Vs. Akhilesh and others)
arising out of case crime No. 18 of 2015 under Sections 147, 452, 498-A,
323 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Tahbarpur, district Azmgarh
pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12,
Azamgarh as well the charge sheet dated 30.8.2015 submitted in the
aforesaid case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in this case they
have falsely been implicated for demand of dowry and harassment. He
further submits that the applicants are relatives of the husband, the applicant
no.1 is husband whose application was rejected by this Court by order dated
19.01.2017.

He further submits that applicant no. 2 Pravesh is Devar, applicant no. 3 is
mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is Mamiya Sasur, applicant no. 5 is Mausiya
Saas, applicant no. 6 is Mamiya Saas. All the applicants are related to the
husband of the informant in remote relation. They may have no any interest
in the demand of dowry or harassment of the wife of applicant no. 1, the
husband. There is general allegation in the F.I.R. against all the applicants
regarding Maar-peet and demand of T.V. and motorcycle. No any specific
allegation has been made against these applicants in this regard. This F.I.R.
was lodged only for the harassment of the applicants those are remotely
                                                               A482 No. 1827 of 2017
                                  2

related to the husband/applicant no. 1 though his application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court by order dated 19.01.2017. This is
clear case of misuse of process of the Court, therefore, request to quash the
entire proceedings against the applicants. He relied his arguments on the
case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra
Vs. Sate (2012)10 S.C.C 741.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another
2012 LawSuit(SC) 716 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 20
which is as under:-

     [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 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.


In the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4069 of 2024
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 22 which is as under:-

     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
                                                             A482 No. 1827 of 2017
                               3

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
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 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 generalised 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.
                                                                                                     A482 No. 1827 of 2017
                                                                      4

                                         However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”


                                    In the present case in hand there is matrimonial dispute between the
                                    applicant no. 1, the husband and the wife opposite party. There are general
                                    allegations regarding demand of T.V. and motorcycle against the husband
                                    and other relatives. The wife has filed a complaint that is still pending before
                                    the court. In the meantime, the wife came to know that her jewellery is being
                                    given in the marriage of her nanad by the husband and his family member,
                                    then again came to her sasural where she was again beaten with kicks and
                                    fists and was also threatened to bring T.V. and motorcycle. The incident of
                                    marpeet took place within the house but there is not specific allegation as to
                                    who beat her and made demand of T.V. and motorcycle except general
                                    allegations against all the applicants.

                                    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
                                    learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record, it shows that dispute
                                    was between husband and wife but the applicant nos. 2 to 6 being relatives
                                    of his family have also been named in the present case with general
                                    allegation of making demand of dowry and harassment by lodging F.I.R.
                                    second time since complaint case is already pending before the court in this
                                    regard.

                                    In view of the observation made by Apex Court in the case of Geeta
                                    Mehrotra and Shobhit Kumar Mittal (Supra) the application to the extent of
                                    applicant nos. 2 to 6 stand allowed.

                                    Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is partly
                                    allowed to the extent of applicant nos. 2 to 6 and proceedings of the
                                    aforesaid case against applicant nos. 2 to 6 are hereby quashed.
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Suraj Srivastav
                                                                                    (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)




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