Court No. - 82

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10016 of 2021

Applicant :- P Radhakrishna And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Gaur

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the impugned

charge sheet dated 06.02.2020 as well as cognizance dated 5.02.2021 in

Case No. 157 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 207 of 2018 under Section 498A

I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Agra pending before

the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court No. 01, Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the son of the applicants

namely Sirish P performed marriage on 30.04.2009 as love marriage with

opposite party no.2 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Shahganj, Agra. The present

case is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, where the

opposite party no.2 deliberately or intentionally has deserted her husband

and did not want to live with him, and for this reason the present false and

frivolous FIR has been lodged. Submission of the learned counsel for the

applicants is that as per allegation itself there is no specific allegation

made by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants except the general

allegation of demand of dowry. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner no.

1 is a pensioner and both husband and wife living separately from his son

and his daughter-in-law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed matrimonial dispute in detail in

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar on 8 February,

2022 [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P (Crl.)

No. 6545 OF 2020)] where series of judgement have been mentioned. In

the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC

452 , it was also observed that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant

relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.

The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of

omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the

crime are made out."

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at

numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498 A

IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in

matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a

trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from

the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus

allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked

would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way

of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the

relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out

against them.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein

above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the

court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by

prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the applicants

are father and monther-in-law and living separately.

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby,

quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 20.4.2022

Fhd

Digitally signed by FAHAD NIYAZ

Date: 2022.04.26 16:44:09 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad