Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 604

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
Janardan Prasad Shukla And Ors. – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. And Anr. - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 2390 of 2017
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary.
For the Opposite Parties :Govt. Advocate, Vimal Shukla.

The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, is duty-bound to quash criminal proceedings that are manifestly vexatious, serve ulterior personal motives, or lack foundational evidence, particularly when matrimonial disputes are transformed into criminal offences through omnibus allegations against family members without specific attribution.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 392, 452, 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Summoning order - Mechanical issuance of process - Requirement of application of mind by Magistrate.

(B) Inherent Powers - High Courts - Scope of - Where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, High Court should invoke inherent powers to prevent abuse of process. (Para 19)

(C) Summoning - Serious matter - Magistrate must record satisfaction regarding existence of a prima facie case based on specific allegations and evidence, not merely rely on blanket descriptions or standard phraseology. (Paras 28, 38, 44)

(D) Matrimonial Dispute - Trends of implicating family members - Courts must be cautious when criminal proceedings arise from matrimonial discord to ensure no misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta. (Paras 24, 42)

Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged a summoning order in a complaint case involving allegations of trespass, assault, and robbery, initiated against extended family members amid ongoing matrimonial litigation. Applicants contended the proceedings were a counterblast to pending marital disputes and contained vague, omnibus allegations without specific overt acts.

Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to exercise judicial discretion, issuing summons mechanically without analyzing the ingredients of the alleged offences or assigning individual roles. The revisional court also failed to address the absence of foundational facts in the witness testimonies.

Issues: Whether the summoning order suffered from non-application of mind and if the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to their origin in personal enmity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that criminal law cannot be set into motion routinely. Given the lack of specific accusations and the clear manifestation of mala fide intent arising from matrimonial conflict, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process.

Result: Application allowed; impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of case history and procedural events (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments for quashing based on mala fide intentions (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. counterarguments by the state and respondent (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. factual context of matrimonial dispute and legal scope (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. application of bhajan lal guidelines for quashing (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. critical evaluation of evidence and witness credibility (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. assessment of ingredients establishing ipc offences (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
8. requirement of judicial mind in summoning orders (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
9. quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of law (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
10. formal quashing of impugned orders (Para 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Shri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners, and Shri Vimal Shukla, learned Counsel for the Opposite party no.2, as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed assailing the Judgment and order dated 08.03.2017, passed in Criminal Revision No. 31/2017 by District Judge, Balrampur and the Summoning Order dated 20.01.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Balrampur by means of which the applicants/petitioners were summoned in Complaint Case No. 545/2014 under Sections 323,452,392,506 Ι.P.C., lodged at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, in the case of “Manoj Kumar Tewari versus Janardan Prasad Shukla and others”.

3. The factual exposition, as set forth in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, is that due to matrimonial discord, particularly arising out of proceedings for dissolution of marriage initiated by opposite party no. 2 against the daughter of applicant/petitioner no. 1, enmity developed between the parties. On 12.05.2014, on account of the said animosity, the applicants/petitioners came to the residence of opposite party no. 2, assaulted him, and forcibly snatched a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. On the basis of these allegations, Complaint Case No. 545/2014 under Sections 323, 452, 392 and 506 I.P.C was instituted in May 2014 at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

4. Subsequently, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., followed by the statements of witnesses, namely, Jitendra Kumar Dubey, Vishnu Pal Singh, and Subham. Upon consideration of the material so collected, the Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned Summoning Order dated 20.01.2016 against the applicants/petitioners, in the following words:

5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid Summoning Order, the applicants/petitioners preferred a Criminal Revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur. However, the Revisional Court, vide its order dated 08.03.2017, dismissed the Revision petition without granting relief to the present applicants/petitioners. Therefore, the present application/petition has been filed assailing both the aforesaid impugned orders dated 20.01.2016 (passed by the Ld. Magistrate) and 08.03.2017 (passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge), respectively.

6. Mr. D.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners, contends that in the present case, the complaint has been instituted with considerable delay without any plausible explanation for such delay. It has been further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable, exaggerated, and devoid of substance, and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It has been strenuously submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners that the impugned complaint has been instituted by the husband (opposite party No.2) against his in-laws on account of matrimonial disco