HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Nitin Agarwal And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s)

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudha Garg Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Ms. Sudha Garg who has appeared in person and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.8.2025 passed by the learned Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in Case No. 7393 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, whereby the application for discharge filed by the revisionists has been rejected.

3. Brief genesis of the case is that revisionists nos. 1 & 2 are the cousin brother of husband of opposite party no. 2, revisionist no. 3 is maternal uncle of husband of opposite party no. 2 whereas revisionist no. 4 is married sister-

in-law of opposite party no. 2.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that due to discord between the opposite party no. 2/complainant and her husband, on 08.10.2004 opposite party no. 2/complainant took all her belongings and, after entering into a compromise, left along with her parental family. After a considerable period after the compromise, upon taking legal advice, the complainant got the above-mentioned case instituted. It is further submitted that revisionist no. 4 Smt. Neetu Agrawal was residing with her husband at Ravara, Districtd Bhuj, Gujarat, and the marriage of the opposite party no. 2/complainant was also solemnized in Gujarat. Revisionist No. 4 is residing at Jaipur, Rajasthan, and she never had any transaction or dealing with the complainant. Revisionist No. 3 resides separately with his family and there has never been any dispute or altercation between him and the opposite party no. 2/complainant or the family of her husband. On 08.10.2004, the compromise which took place between the opposite party no. 2/complainant and her husband signed the said compromise as a witness. There does not arise any question of demand of dowry by revisionist no. 3 and 4 from the complainant or her family, because both belong to different families and reside at different places. They reside at different places. In relation to the incident shown by the opposite party no. 2/complainant, on 09.03.2005 a complaint under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was filed by the complainant before the learned trial court, but in the said complaint also no allegation was levelled against the revisionists.

5. Opposite party no. 2 has contended that opposite party no. 2 had lodged the FIR on 8.10.2004 against the revisionists for allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty. It is further contended that revisionists had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8593 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court declining to interfere with the FIR, however, granted protection from arrest till conclusion of trial. On 5.12.2004 charge sheet had been submitted against the revisionists in crime no. 379 of 2004 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 31.5.2005. Further the proceedings of the aforesaid case were stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide an interim order passed in Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 filed by the revisionists. On 21.9.2010, the said interim order passed in Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 was vacated. On 4.7.2019 the revisionists never pursued their own Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 which led its dismissal for want of prosecution. On 12.11.204 the revisionists filed discharged application without submitting the custody before the trial court without fulfilling the bail out, misusing the protection from arrest renderin