SMT. ZARINAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2140 of 2018

Smt. Zarina and others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.G.A., Dinesh Chandra Srivastava,
                                Suhas Subhash Mehta

Court No. - 84
                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the
State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the
charegsheet dated 27.09.2017 & cognizance order dated 25.11.2017 as
well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4916 of 2017, (State Vs.
Arif & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0105 of 2017, under Section
498-A, 323 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has
been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed
any offence. He further submits that there is general allegations made in
the FIR against the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant nos.1
& 2 are mother-in-law and husband of opposite party no.2. There is no
specific allegation against the applicants. Essential ingredients to
constitute the offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been
instituted with a malafide intention. On the strength of the aforesaid,
learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the paragraph no.18 of
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi
Narayana & Others Vs State of Telangana & Another, 2024 INSC 953,
the Supreme Court has observed that vague allegation may lead to misuse
of legal process. In this respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted herein below:

     “18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made
                                                         A482 No. 2140 of 2018
                               2


     by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than
     claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant
     Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not
     provided any specific details or described any particular
     instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time,
     date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment
     occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
     allegations."

4. Learned AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed
the prayer with the submission that there is specific allegation has been
made in statement of opposite party no.2 recorded during the course of
investigation against the applicants. There is no variation in the version of
FIR or the statement of opposite party no.2. The chargesheet has been
filed after proper investigation. It is further submitted that the cognizance
has already been taken in the matter. It is also submitted that there is
material evidence on record to proceed with the trial. It is further
submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
and no interference is called for.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the entire evidence.

6. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the
opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that there are specific and separate
allegations against the applicants. It is evident from the allegation made in
the FIR that all the allegations are not entirely false against the present
applicants. The present applicants are husband and mother-in-law of the
opposite party no.2. The applicants were chargesheeted by the
Investigating Officer concerned after due investigation and material
collected during the course of investigation. The cruelty may be either
physical or mental, and in all cases, no physical injury is required to
establish a prima facie case.

7. In the present case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the proceedings
initiated against the applicants with an ulterior motive, as the opposite
party no.2 has stated in the FIR that the said compromise was not made
with her free consent. It is also stated that the applicants are fraudulently
                                                                                            A482 No. 2140 of 2018
                                                                   3


                                    prepared the Talaknama and opposite party no.2 had never sign on it; the
                                    forged signature was made by the applicant and the said Talaknama was
                                    not registered before any competent authority. All the submissions made
                                    on behalf of the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be
                                    adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage
                                    only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by
                                    Supreme Court in the 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.) 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. In this case, after registration of FIR, the
                                    Investigating Officer after investigation has submitted the chargesheet
                                    against the applicants and cognizance have been taken by learned
                                    Magistrate vide order dated 25.11.2017. From a perusal of the material
                                    available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage
                                    it cannot be said that offences levelled against the present applicants are
                                    not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.




                                                                                       (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
                                    April 10, 2026
                                    S.K.




Digitally signed by :-
SWEETY KANOJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad