NA528/7534/2025 of DEEPAK SINGH AND 3 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 6 August 2025

1. In pursuance to the order dated 21.7.2025 both husband andwife are present before this Court, however, wife submits that shedoes not want to live with the husband.

1-A. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicants forquashing the charge sheet no. 27 of 2024 dated 8.9.2024 submittedby P.S. Mahila Thana, District Hapur in Case Crime No. 26 of2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC & Section 3/4 DowryProhibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Hapur, againstapplicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354,354B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. MahilaThana, District Hapur against applicant no.4, taking cognizancedated 18.10.2024 and entire proceedings of Case No. 475 of 2024(State Vs. Deepak Singh and others), pending in court of JudicialMagistrate, District Hapur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that ends ofjustice would be served if the applicants are permitted to appearbefore the court concerned through counsel in terms of Section228 BNSS.

3-A. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicantsundertake to ensure presence of their Counsel/Pleader before thecourt concerned on each date fixed. It is further submitted that theapplicants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and willparticipate in the trial court proceedings through theAdvocate/Pleader. It is further submitted that the applicants willhave no objection in the event the evidence is recorded in the

4. The applicants are subjected to prosecution for the followingoffences:-

(i) The applicants are subjected to an offence under section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code. The punishment provided under theaforesaid Section is for imprisonment for a term which may extendto three years.

(ii) The applicants are also subjected to prosecution under Section323 of I.P.C. and the same is punishable with a term which mayextend to one year.

(iii) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section504 IPC and the same is punishable with a term which may extendto two years.

(iv) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section354B IPC and the same is punishable with a term which mayextend to seven years.

(v) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section354 IPC and the same is punishable with a term which may extendto five years.

(vi) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section 3of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which is punishable with aterm not less than five years.

(vii) The applicants are also subjected to the provisions of Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which may extend to twoyears.

5. The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute. Theapplicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jeth. Asper the prosecution case, it is alleged that there is demand ofdowry by the accused persons, the wife was subjected to cruelty inrespect of unlawful demand of dowry, there are allegations ofassault on accused persons. Learned AGA has not placed anyinjury report before this court. It is not the case of the State that theapplicants have any previous criminal history or the applicantsmay tamper with the evidence. It has also not been suggested onbehalf of opposite party that the applicants would flee away fromjustice or that applicants have not co-operated at the time ofinvestigation.

6. Marriage is an institution which admits persons to family life.Marriage is an institution of great social relevance. The marriagealso recognises the union of two individuals. The relationship alsorecognises the moral, social and legal obligations of parties tomarriage. The Society embraces the married spouses in a waydistinguished from others. The married couples are heirs of socialorder and principles of engagement with each other and with thesociety. It is also means of spiritual growth of individuals.

7. In marriage, sometimes individuals enter into disharmony whichresults in friction in matrimonial relationship. Such a disharmonybetween spouses and their family members arises out ofmatrimonial dispute between the parties. Such a matrimonialdispute even extend to the criminal jurisdiction. The parties to themarriage levy criminal charges against each other to scale up thematrimonial dispute between parties. Sometimes such scaling upof the dispute between parties is at the behest of family membersand near ones. In the heat of the moment over trivial issues withoutproper deliberations the criminal complaints are lodged. At thetime of filing of the complaint, the implications and consequencesare not properly visualised by complainant that such complaint canlead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to thecomplainant, accused and his close relations and even the marriageas institution is affected.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. Stateof Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 has held hereunder:- "37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that aserious relook of the entire provision is warranted by thelegislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge thatexaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a largenumber of complaints. The tendency of over implication is alsoreflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials leadto immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal inthe trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars ofsuffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of thesecomplaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led toenormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness ofthe society. It is high time that the legislature must take intoconsideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changesin the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take intoconsideration the informed public opinion and the pragmaticrealities in consideration and make necessary changes in therelevant provisions of law."

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed and AnotherVs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 INSC 363 inrespect of granting exemption from personal appearance has heldas under in paragraph 47:-

"Further, the observation that there is no provision for grantingexemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, isnot correct, as the power to grant exemption from personalappearance under the Code [Section 205 of the Code. also seeSection 317 of the Code] should not be read in a restrictivemanner as applicable only after the accused has been grantedbail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. RaniJethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167, held that the power to grantexemption from personal appearance should be exercisedliberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption.[see also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Hyderabad, (2020) 12 SCC 695]. Section 205 states that theMagistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with thepersonal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, andallow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions ofthe Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where theCode is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends ofjustice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on theprinciple, that every procedure which is just and fair, isunderstood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly orimpliedly prohibited by law."

10. Considering the nature of controversy, it is directed that in caseapplication in terms of Section 228 BNSS is filed by applicants,the court concerned to dispense with the personal attendance ofapplicants and the applicants be permitted to appear throughpleader/counsel subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicants shall appear before the court concerned throughcounsel on the next date or within 20 days from today whichever isearlier. In default, the present order and direction shallautomatically stand vacated.

(b) The applicants shall execute bond with or without sureties fortheir appearance to the satisfaction of the court concerned in termsof Section 88 of Cr.P.C. In default, the present order and directionshall automatically stand vacated.

(c) The applicants shall on affidavit submit their permanentaddress as well as the current address of residence before the courtconcerned within 15 days from today. The applicants shall also submit before the court concerned the contact number (if any) ofthe applicants as well as the e-mail address (if any) of theapplicants.

(d) The applicants shall also submit an affidavit before the courtconcerned that they would not tamper with the evidence orthreaten the witnesses during the pendency of the trial.

(e) In the event, the applicants change address of residence, theyshall submit an affidavit with regard to change of address withintwo weeks before the court concerned.

(f) It shall be the duty of the applicants to ensure that thepleader/counsel engaged by the applicants is present before thecourt concerned on the date fixed without exemption. The failureon the part of the pleader/counsel to appear before the courtconcerned when the matter is taken up will be construed asabsence of applicants and the court concerned, thereafter, would beat liberty to take such measures for enforcing the personalattendance/personal appearance of the applicants as may berequired under law.

(g) The applicants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournmentbefore the court concerned. In the event, the counsel/pleaderengaged by applicants is not available, it shall be the duty of theapplicants to engage another counsel and ensure that the newlyengaged counsel is present before the court concerned for progressof the case.

(h) The court concerned at any stage of proceeding can directpersonal attendance of applicants by order in writing and that ifnecessary enforce such attendance in accordance with law. It isfurther provided, where court concerned issues any summon orwarrant on account of absence of counsel for applicants before thecourt concerned or in respect of any other matter, the policeauthorities shall be obliged under law to execute the summon orwarrant and ensure the attendance of the applicants before thecourt concerned.

(i) Whenever the court concerned directs personal attendance ofthe applicants before the court concerned, it shall be duty of theapplicants to remain present before the court concerned and toensure that the trial court proceedings are not adjourned onaccount of absence of the applicants. It shall be the duty of thecounsel engaged by applicants to inform the applicants with regardto the progress of the case and, in the event, the personal attendance of the applicants is required. The non-communicationby the counsel for the applicants about the progress of the case orthe order of the court concerned for personal attendance of theapplicants shall not be permissible as defence on behalf of theapplicants.

(j) The prosecution/police authority/complainant shall ensure thatthe witnesses are produced before the court concerned withoutdelay as and when directed by the court concerned.

(k) The court concerned shall not grant any unnecessaryadjournment to any of the parties.

(l) The court concerned will be at liberty to take coercive measuresin accordance with law where the applicants are found to betampering with the evidence or delaying the trial without anyjustification.

10-A. The personal appearance of husband and wife is exempted.

11. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the presentapplicationstands disposed of.

Order Date :- 7.8.2025VMA