Allahabad High Court

JITENDRA KASHYAPversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed as a prima facie case exists and the matter cannot be quashed at this stage.

Summary

The applicant, Jitendra Kashyap, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge sheet filed under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in a dowry harassment case. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 9 February 2020, after which the wife left the matrimonial home and the applicant filed a restitution of conjugal rights petition. The wife subsequently lodged an FIR accusing the applicant of demanding dowry and assaulting her, leading to a charge sheet and cognizance by the magistrate. The applicant contended that no prima facie case existed and that the allegations were baseless, while the State argued that the FIR, statements and investigation material established a prima facie offence. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the matter involved a dispute of fact and that a prima facie case was evident, therefore refusing to quash the proceedings. The application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when a prima facie case is made out.
Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie offence under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506

Subjects

dowry harassment
criminal procedure
section 482
prima facie case
quash of criminal proceedings
marital dispute
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5034 of 2024

Jitendra Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balbir Singh, Shailendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Umesh Kumar Tripathi

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Counsel for applicant,
Mr. Umesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the applicant with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet dated
02/05/2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 56 of 2023, under
Sections 323, 498A, and 506 1.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, State vs.
Jitendra Kashyap, pending in the court of A.C.J. (Junior
Division) CR-3/J.M., Jhansi, P.S.- Baruasagar, District-Jhansi
and also quash the cognizance/summoning order dated
29/09/2023 and Bailble Warrant dated 15.12.2023 passed by
Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) C.R- 3/ J.M, Jhansi."

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage
between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on
09.02.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The applicant
neither harassed nor demanded dowry at the time of marriage or
thereafter. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on
the basis of false and baseless allegations. A few months after the
marriage, opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial home and
A482 No. 5034 of 2024
2

began residing at her parental home. Thereafter, the applicant
filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family
Court, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. Opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R.
registered as Case Crime No. 56 of 2023,under Sections 498A,
323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Baruasagar, District
Jhasi against the applicant. During the investigation, the
statements of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were
recorded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance thereof,
although, no prima facie case is made out against him. Therefore,
the summoning order and the entire proceedings may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that, upon perusal of
the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the opposite
party no.2, and the witnesses, and the material collected during
the course of investigation, a prima facie offence is clearly made
out against the applicant. Accordingly, entire proceedings cannot
be quashed. The opposite party no.2 was brutally beaten by the
applicant for fulfilling the additional demand of dowry, therefor,
this application may be dismissed.

5. As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. registered
as Case Crime No. 56 of 2023,under Sections 498A, 323, 506
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Baruasagar,
District Jhansi against the applicant alleging that a few days after
the marriage, the applicant began demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and
one four-wheeler vehicle as additional dowry. After the
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and
the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29.09.2023.

6. Upon the perusal of the material on record and considering the
facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the
bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be
adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only a prima facie case
is to be considered in light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court in 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.)
A482 No. 5034 of 2024
3

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. The disputed
defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not
find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the
prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

September 21, 2026
Vijay
(Chawan Prakash,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…