IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Shri Ayush Tandon and Others – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. - 739 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2024
Abuse of Process of Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, Sections 498-A, 325, 506 I.P.C, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another: (2012) 10 SCC 741, Mahmood Ali versus State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, Abhishek versus State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 - The court analyzed the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C in matrimonial disputes and emphasized the need for caution in exercising inherent powers. It considered the contradictions in the complainant's statements and the misuse of criminal prosecution for ulterior motives, ultimately quashing the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C alleging harassment by the applicants and others for demanding dowry. The court analyzed the contradictions in the complainant's statements and the misuse of criminal prosecution for ulterior motives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be a gross abuse of the process of law and would result in the failure of justice to the applicants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the misuse of criminal prosecution in a matrimonial dispute, contradictions in the complainant's statements, and the ulterior motives behind the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in matrimonial disputes and considered the contradictions in the complainant's statements and the misuse of criminal prosecution for ulterior motives.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order and criminal proceedings of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, finding it to be a gross abuse of the process of law and a failure of justice to the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
1. The opposite party no. 2 appeared in person and she has filed a counter affidavit. She stated that she will advance her submissions by herself, as she is not in a position to afford to pay the fee of any Advocate. The Court offered to provide the services of an Advocate at the State’s expenses but she declined the. After this, the Court proceeded to hear the submissions of Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A-I for the State and Ms. Disha Kappor, the opposite party no. 2 in person, who has produced her Adhaar Card to establish her identity.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 27, Lucknow and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9780 of 2022 instituted in furtherance of Miscellaneous Case No. 325/2022, which was an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (Disha Tandon Vs. Ayush Tandon and others) under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District Lucknow, which is pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 27, Lucknow.
3. The opposite party no.2 had filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against 10 persons - (i) Ayush Tandon son of Amit Tandon (the applicant no.1) (ii) Ashutosh Tandon ‘Gopal Ji’, son of Lalji Tondon (Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh) (iii)- Madhu Tandon wife of Ashutosh Tandon (iv) Subodh Tandon, son of Lalji Tandon (v)-Vandana Tandon wife of Subodh Tandon (vi) Amit Tandon, son of Lalji Tandon (the applicant no.2) (vii)- Namita Tandon wife of Amit Tandon (the applicant no. 3) (viii) Teeru Khanna daughter of Ashutosh Tandon (ix)-Saloni Sehgal daughter of Amit Tandon (x) Vansh Tandon son of Subodh Tandon, stating that she got married to the applicant no.1 on 11.12.2019. The grandfather of the applicant no.1 used to treat the opposite party no.2 affectionately and respectfully but after his death, all the accused persons used to harass her mentally and they used to abuse and beat her. Uncle of the applicant no.1, who was an Hon’ble Minister, used to encourage him to beat his wife. About two months after death of the grandfather of the applicant no.1, the opposite party no.2 was turned out of her matrimonial home on 28.09.2020. Prior to it, the entire family had harassed the opposite party no.2 and applicant no.1 had beaten her and caused a fracture in her hand. When the opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial home on 08.10.2020, all the accused persons had treated her badly. Uncle of the applicant no.1 had threatened the opposite party no.2 to get the opposite party no.2 shot by his matrimonial uncle Chandra Mohan Mehrotra (who had not been arrayed as a party to the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C). On the first wedding anniversary of the opposite party no.2 summons of a suit for annulment of marriage was issued by the Family Court. The opposite party no.2 categorically stated in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that she merely wants that she should be given the same respect by her husband and his family members as was given during the lifetime of the grandfather of the applicant no.1 but the uncle of the applicant no.1 keeps on threatening her because of his high political position.
4. It was further stated in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that when the opposite party no.2 had gone with her mother to meet her husband on 16.12.2021, the accused persons abused them from the balcony, threatened them, and stated that till the opposite party no.2 gave Rs. 50 lakhs and a Fortuner car in dowry, she will not be able to live in her matrimonial home. She gave an application to the police on 02.01.2022, but she was pressurized to withdraw her complaint. She gave several application
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in matrimonial disputes and considered the contradictions in the complainant's statements and the misu....
Vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient to sustain criminal charges against in-laws under dowry laws; specific evidence is required to proceed, preventing misuse of legal ....
The court emphasized preventing misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, ruling that vague allegations against family members warrant quashing of proceedings. Specific wrongdoing must be demon....
The court held that proceedings under Section 498A IPC were malicious and lacked evidentiary support, justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue where no material exists to prima facie make out complicity of accused in a cognizable offence.
The court emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes against family members can lead to misuse of legal provisions, necessitating specific allegations for valid prosecution....
Allegations of dowry demands must be specific; vague claims do not justify criminal proceedings under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
General allegations in FIR without specific roles do not warrant prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.