ROHIT AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44452 of 2023

Rohit And 6 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   Anurag Upadhyaya, G.A.

Court No. - 76
                       HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Sri Anurag Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is
not present even in the revised call. Despite his name being printed in the
cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and
place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet.

4. Counter affidavit dated 08.04.2024 of the State is on the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not proposes to
file any rejoinder affidavit to the same. He further submits that he has not
received any counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 till
date.

5. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed before
this Court by the applicants- Rohit (husband), Bablu (father-in-law), Smt.
Geeta (mother-in-law), Manisha (Nanad), Kiran (Nanad), Golu(devar)
and Monu (Devar) with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and to quash the
impugned chargesheet dated 11.8.2023 and cognizance order dated
22.9.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as
                                                       A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                               2


entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1610 of 2023 (State Vs. Rohit
and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2023, Under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-
Mahila Thana, District- Jaunpur, presently pending before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1610 of 2023 (State Vs.
Rohit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 10. of 2023, Under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station- Mahila Thana, District- Jaunpur, presently pending before the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, during the pendency
of the instant application (Under section 482 Cr.P.C.) before this Hon'ble
Court. So that justice be done, otherwise the applicants shall suffer
irreparable loss and hard injury. And/or pass such other and further order
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present
circumstances of the case."

6. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 28.07.2023 as Case Crime
No.0010 of 2023 at 15:50 hours, for the offences under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Jaunpur, by Smt. Gunja Devi,
against Rohit, Bablu, Geeta, Manisha, Kiran, Golu and Monu on an
application given to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, alleging therein
that she is resident of Mauja Narhan, Police Station Kerakat, District
Jaunpur. She was married on 26.06.2021 with Rohit, son of Bablu Sonkar,
village Rasaina (Ranjitpur), Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur as
per Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage, her father had given Rs. 5
lakh in cash and Apache motorcycle and jewellery and household goods
worth Rs.3 lakh. She gave birth to a child. After marriage she went to her
husband's house and lived as his wife and continued to perform her
obligation as wife, but in her matrimonial house, her husband Rohit,
father-in-law Bablu, mother-in-law Geeta, sister-in-law Manisha and
Kiran and brother-in-law Golu and Monu stated that she should give Rs.
20 lakh as dowry or else ask for a four-wheeler from her father, due to
which they used to beat her often and abuse her and torture her physically
and mentally and used to threaten her that if she did not ask for money
                                                        A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                               3


from her parents and did not bring it, then they would burn her to death in
this house. She has regularly begged for mercy from the said person of
her matrimonial house and stated that her parents have just spent Rs.35
thousand on medicines and treatment when she gave birth to a girl child.
Incident is of 27.06.2023 at 07.00 a.m. The accused persons took her to
the room and tied her to a cot and wanted to burn her by sprinkling oil on
her. She shouted loudly on which the people from the neighbourhood
came and saved her life. The accused snatched all her jewellery and
clothes and made her sit in the car and brought her back to her parents'
house. They beat her in front of her parents and relative Girja Shankar and
all the villagers and pushed her out of the car. Her parents objected and
stated not to do this on which the accused abused them and beat them and
threatened that till demand of dowry will not fulfilled, your daughter will
stay here, even if their neck are slit or hanged they will not take her back.
She was going to the police station to give information and get the
medical examination done, on which the accused stopped her on the way
and threatened that if she gives information to the police station, they
would kill her and her family. She is giving information. Therefore it is
requested to kindly order the Inspector in Charge, Kerakat, to lodge a
report and action be taken.

7. Investigation in the matter concluded and a charge sheet dated
11.8.2023 was submitted against the applicants under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur took cognizance upon the
same and summoned the accused vide order dated 22.09.2023 for the
offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus the present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted the present
matter is matrimonial in nature which has arisen out of matrimonial
relationship between the applicant no. 1 Rohit the husband and the
opposite party no. 2 Gunja Devi the wife. It is submitted that the other
applicants are the family members of the husband being the applicant
no.2- Bablu (father-in-law), the applicant no.3- Smt. Geeta (mother-in-
                                                       A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                               4


law), the applicant no. 4 Manisha (nanad) and the applicant no. 5 Kiran
(nanad), the applicant no. 6 Golu (devar) and the applicant no. 7 Monu
(devar) of the opposite party no. 2. They have been implicated falsely
only because of the reason that they happen to be the family members of
the husband of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted common
and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is further
submitted that in so far as the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is
concerned, there is no allegation that any such property was entrusted to
any of the accused and the allegation is that belongings of the first
informant were snatched from her which cannot make out a case under
Section 406 I.P.C. as the property has to be entrusted and then there has to
be allegation of its misappropriation. It is submitted while placing para-10
to the affidavit that the present case is a case of no injury. Reliance has
been placed by learned counsel for the applicants on the judgements of
the Apex Court in the case of Charul Shukla vs. State of U.P. and
others: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476 to submit that there is a tendency
of exaggeration in versions in matrimonial matters and implication of
family members of the husband also. It is submitted that as the
proceedings against the applicants are an abuse of process of the court and
deserves to be quashed and the prayer as prayed for deserves to be
allowed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel the State opposed the submissions of
learned counsel for the applicants and the present petition and submitted
that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the
victim recorded during investigation and there are allegations against
them.

10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the applicant no. 1 Rohit is the husband of the
opposite party no.2 and the other applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-
law, nanad and devar of the opposite party no.2. There was matrimonial
discord between the couple and thus there was matrimonial disharmony
between them. The allegations against the applicant no. 2, no.3 mother-in-
law, no. 4 and 5 nanad and no.6 and 7 devar are general and omnibus. In
so far as the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, there is no
allegation that any such property was entrusted to any of the accused and
                                                       A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                               5


the allegation is that belongings of the first informant were snatched from
her which cannot make out a case under Section 406 I.P.C. as the property
has to be entrusted and then there has to be allegation of its
misappropriation.The present case is a case of no injury.

11. Time & again the Apex Court has held that proceedings in so far as
the family members & relatives of husband are concerned, should be
scrutinized and if the same are of general & omnibus in nature be
quashed. In the case of Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab &
Another: Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13579
of 2023) decided on 26.11.2024, the Apex Court in paragraph nos. 9, 10
& 11 has held as under:-

"9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand &
Anr., this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in
matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in
a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense
sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also
not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was
further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said
observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution,against non-
discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a
close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether
allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in
matrimonial disputes of this nature.In this context, it is to be noted that
the term 'relative' has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it
must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence,
normally,it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife,son,
daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any
individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a
person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti
Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:-

"...The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by
                                                         A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                                6


husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant
are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."

10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling
under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the
light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the
Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication
is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is
an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except
the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the
contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order.

11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.,
this Court held that 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 tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire
members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in
matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding.
In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of
Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family
members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them
are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when
relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim
resides,the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the
question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the
expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should
also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated
version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused.
It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal,wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the
earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where
the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised by
High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made
                                                                                            A482 No. 44452 of 2023
                                                                    7


                                    in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
                                    basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that
                                    there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused."

                                    12. Further the Apex Court in the cases of Dara Lakshmi Narayan and
                                    others vs. State of Telangana: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, and
                                    Geddam Jhansi vs. The State of Telangana: 2025 INSC 160 has held
                                    that there is exaggerated version of the incident and the same can also be
                                    seen from the fact that the entire family has been made an accused for
                                    ulterior motives and with malafide intention with general and omnibus
                                    allegations.

                                    13. Thus in view of the judgements of the Apex Court, since common,
                                    general and omnibus allegations against the applicant no.2- Bablu (father-
                                    in-law), the applicant no.3- Smt. Geeta (mother-in-law), the applicant no.
                                    4 Manisha (nanad) and the applicant no. 5 Kiran (nanad), the applicant
                                    no. 6 Golu (devar) and the applicant no. 7 Monu (devar) of the opposite
                                    party no. 2 who are the family members of the applicant no. 1 Rohit the
                                    husband of the opposite party no.2, have been levelled, the present
                                    petition deserved to be allowed and as such the same is allowed in respect
                                    to them.

                                    14. The petition in respect to the applicant no. 1 Rohit the husband of the
                                    opposite party no. 2 is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands
                                    vacated.


                                    15. The impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and proceedings of the
                                    said case are hereby quashed in respect of applicant no.2 to 7.

                                    16. The trial court to proceed with the trial of the applicant no.1 Rohit
                                    without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.

                                    17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.



                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    September 28, 2026
                                    Naresh




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad