MUNINDRA ALIAS GUDDU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                           Reserved On: 2.2.2026
                                          Delivered on :18.5.2026

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5185 of 2025

Munindra Alias Guddu And Another
                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Manju     Yadav,          Preete
                                   Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A.

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Ms. Preete Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellants
and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State – respondent.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the cognizance order
dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in Session Case No.
1459 of 2024 ( State vs. Dipanshi Shirohi and another) with a
prayer to allow the present Criminal Appeal and set aside the
charge sheet dated 05.09.2024 as well as the cognizance order
dated 10.09.2024 against the appellants. Further prayer has been
made to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the
appellants.

3. Briefly stated, respondent/ informant Anjana, daughter of
Daulat Ram, lodged FIR against appellants and three others (all
in-laws of informant) stating that her inter-caste marriage with
Alkesh Kumar was solemnised on 2 May 2022 at Chhatarpur
Matangi Bhawan with the consent and participation of both
families. After a few days of marriage, her mother-in-law Saroj
Devi, sister-in-law Deepanshi Sirohi alias Gudiya, brother-in-law
Muninder alias Guddu, and driver Raju allegedly started beating
and abusing her on the basis of caste. They allegedly used casteist
remarks, threatened her with a pistol, treated her separately in the
                                                    CRLA No. 5185 of 2025
                          2

house, made her sleep on the floor, and humiliated her before
relatives and society members. It was further alleged that they
demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, a big car, a motorcycle, and gold chains
as dowry, and told her to leave the house if the demands were not
fulfilled. The informant also alleged that despite her family
giving gold rings, gifts, utensils, and watches at the time of
marriage, she was continuously harassed, beaten, and
discriminated against on account of caste and dowry demands.

4. The informant further alleged that Deepanshi, through driver
Raju, called some persons to assault her and her father and that
her father's mobile phone worth Rs.40,000/-was broken. It was
also alleged that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-
law took away her jewellery, clothes, cash of Rs.3,80,000/- brass
utensils, wedding gifts, and other household articles by loading
them into vehicles. She further alleged one day she and her
husband went at her maternal home and when she later returned
to her matrimonial house, the house was empty and even
electricity wires and kitchen items had been removed, forcing her
and her husband to depend on neighbours for food and later
return to her parental home at Chhatarpur. She further alleged
that fake gold-plated jewellery was given in place of the jewellery
shown before marriage. In August, when she and her husband
visited the village, the accused persons allegedly refused to let
them enter the house, threatened to kill them, and drove them
away. It was also alleged that Deepanshi, Saroj Devi, Muninder,
driver Raju, and Trilok Sirohi threatened and insulted her with
casteist remarks before villagers and denied her any share in the
house and land. Therefore, she alleged that the accused persons
committed       atrocities,  dowry     harassment,      caste-based
discrimination, and human rights violations against her.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the FIR was
initially lodged by the informant at Police Station Chhatarpur,
Delhi and was subsequently transferred to District Bulandshahar
only on the ground that the alleged place of occurrence was
shown as village Sharifpur Bhaisauli, District Bulandshahar. It
was argued that during investigation, when the Investigating
Officer contacted the informant on mobile phone for recording
her statement, she allegedly stated that she would not come to
District Bulandshahar and further disclosed that the entire
incident had taken place at Delhi and no incident had occurred at
                                                    CRLA No. 5185 of 2025
                          3

Bulandshahar. It was thus submitted that there exists a material
contradiction between the allegations made in the FIR and the
statement subsequently made before the Investigating Officer
regarding the place of occurrence. According to the appellants, if
the statement made before the Investigating Officer is accepted, it
clearly indicates that the informant never resided with the
appellants at Bulandshahar and no occurrence, as alleged in the
FIR, ever took place there.

6. It was further argued that the informant did not level any
allegation against her husband Alkesh Kumar, though he was
residing with her. Rather, Alkesh Kumar himself stated before the
Investigating Officer that his mother Saroj Devi was innocent and
had no involvement in the alleged incident, despite which
allegations were levelled against her in the FIR. Learned counsel
submitted that the statements of the informant and her husband,
read together, clearly demonstrate that both of them were living
separately from the appellants and that the criminal proceedings
have been initiated due to personal and property disputes within
the family. It was thus contended that the allegations are
exaggerated, motivated and have been falsely levelled with an
ulterior motive to pressurize the appellants in the property
dispute.

7. It was lastly submitted that the appellants are merely the
brother-in-law (Devar) and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant
and that they, along with other family members, have been falsely
implicated in the present case without any independent or reliable
evidence. It was argued that the allegations made in the FIR are
omnibus and general in nature and have been levelled only to
harass the entire family. Learned counsel contended that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants
would amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, it was
prayed that the entire criminal proceedings, along with all
consequential orders passed therein against the appellants, are
liable to be quashed.

8. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer and
submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations of caste-based
harassment, cruelty, dowry demand, assault, intimidation, and
misappropriation of articles against the appellants. It was argued
that merely because some contradictions have been pointed out
regarding the place of occurrence or because the informant and
                                                    CRLA No. 5185 of 2025
                          4

her husband were allegedly residing separately, the prosecution
case cannot be discarded at this stage. Learned A.G.A. further
submitted that the truthfulness, reliability, and effect of the
statements relied upon by the appellants are matters of evidence
which can only be examined during trial. It was thus contended
that from the material collected during investigation, a prima
facie case is made out against the appellants and therefore the
criminal proceedings as well as consequential orders do not
warrant interference.

9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and material
brought on record, this Court finds that the allegations made in
the FIR and the subsequent statement of the informant before the
Investigating Officer regarding the place of occurrence are
materially contradictory. In the FIR, the entire occurrence has
been shown to have taken place at village Sharifpur Bhaisauli,
District Bulandshahar, whereas during investigation the
informant allegedly stated that the entire incident had occurred at
Delhi and no occurrence had taken place at Bulandshahar. If both
versions are read together, it creates serious doubt regarding the
very place of occurrence and also gives rise to an inference that
the informant may not have resided with her in-laws at
Bulandshahar in the manner alleged in the FIR. Such
contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution story and renders
the allegations doubtful.

10. This Court further finds that the allegations levelled against
the appellants and other in-laws are general and omnibus in
nature without assigning any specific role to each accused. The
appellants are brother-in-law (Devar) and sister-in-law (Nanad)
of the informant and have been implicated along with several
family members by making sweeping allegations of harassment,
assault, caste abuse, and dowry demand. No specific date, time,
or distinct overt act has been attributed to them. It is also
significant that Alkesh Kumar, husband of the informant, in his
statement before the Investigating Officer denied any
involvement of his mother Saroj Devi in the alleged occurrence,
despite specific allegations having been made against her in the
FIR. The said circumstance materially weakens the prosecution
version insofar as the implication of the in-laws is concerned.

11. Moreover, although the informant alleged continuous torture,
caste-based harassment, and cruelty by her in-laws at her
                                                                                           CRLA No. 5185 of 2025
                                                                  5

                                        matrimonial home, she remained completely silent regarding the
                                        conduct and reaction of her husband, who according to her was
                                        supporting her. No explanation has been furnished as to how such
                                        alleged acts continued openly in the matrimonial home without
                                        any intervention or reaction from the husband. The silence of the
                                        informant on this material aspect also renders her version
                                        doubtful and creates serious suspicion regarding the genuineness
                                        of the allegations. Considering the overall facts and
                                        circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that
                                        continuation of criminal proceedings against the present
                                        appellants would amount to abuse of the process of law.
                                        Accordingly, the proceedings qua the appellants, along with all
                                        consequential orders passed therein, deserve to be quashed.

                                        12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal succeeds and is
                                        hereby allowed. The charge-sheet dated 5.9.2024 as well as the
                                        cognizance order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Court of Special
                                        Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in
                                        Sessions Case No.1459 of 2024 (State vs. Dipanshi Shirohi and
                                        Another), insofar as they relate to the present appellants, are
                                        hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings of
                                        the aforesaid case, qua the present appellants only, are hereby
                                        quashed. However, it is made clear that the proceedings against
                                        the remaining accused persons shall continue in accordance with
                                        law.
                                        May 18, 2026
                                        Mukesh
                                                                                      (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




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