The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings against Raghvendra Narain Khanna and others in a case involving allegations of dowry demand and physical assault. Presiding over the matter, Justice Brij Raj Singh, observed that continuing the prosecution after a matrimonial relationship had ended in a divorce where cruelty was proved against the wife—not the husband—would amount to an “abuse of process of law.”
The applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders dated March 8, 2017, and August 14, 2015, passed by the Additional District Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Bahraich, respectively. The CJM had summoned the applicants in a complaint case filed by Puneet (the brother of the wife) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Background and Procedural History
The marriage took place on March 9, 2002, in New Delhi. The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed the complaint on July 28, 2015, alleging an incident from June 5, 2013. The trial court summoned the applicants on August 14, 2015. A subsequent criminal revision filed by the applicants was dismissed by the revisional court on March 8, 2017.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicants contended they were falsely implicated. They argued that Applicant No. 3 (the husband) and his wife never resided in Bahraich with Applicants No. 1 and 2 (the parents), making allegations of dowry demand there groundless. They highlighted an “inordinate, unreasonable and unexplained delay” of over two years in filing the complaint. Furthermore, they provided evidence of alibis:
- Applicant No. 1 was in the USA at the time of the alleged incident.
- Applicant No. 2 was in Delhi undergoing medical treatment.
- Applicant No. 3 was on a trip to Nainital with the wife and daughters, supported by hotel records and photographs.
The applicants also noted that a divorce decree had been granted in favor of the husband on February 25, 2021, by the Family Court, Gurugram, which found that cruelty was proved against the wife, not the husband.
The learned AGA, appearing for the State, argued that a perusal of the complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. did make out an offence and that the trial court’s summoning order required no interference. No one appeared for Opposite Party No. 2.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court scrutinized the Family Court’s findings, specifically paragraph 23 of the divorce judgment, which stated:
“In such circumstances, respondent alleging petitioner to be suffering from bipolar disorder when the doctors have also negated such an observation… proves the conduct of the respondent to be cruel towards the petitioner… This conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner amounts to cruelty upon him.”
The High Court also pointed out several critical gaps in the prosecution’s case:
- Delay: The complaint was filed nearly two years after the alleged incident without a plausible explanation.
- Lack of Evidence: No medical report was available to support the allegations of physical assault.
- Wife’s Testimony: During cross-examination in separate Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the wife admitted she did not lodge the dowry case and was unaware of the facts of the case filed by her brother.
The Court noted:
“The cross-examination of the sister of opposite party no.2… indicates that she had no knowledge about the factum of the present case and it appears that her brother had instituted the criminal proceedings just to settle his personal score with mala fide intention.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2025), the Court emphasized:
“Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled in their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment.”
Decision
The Court concluded that since the divorce decree established that cruelty was not proved against the husband, and given the suspicious delay and lack of evidence, the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.
The application was allowed, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2032 of 2015, including the orders dated March 8, 2017, and August 14, 2015, were quashed as against the applicants.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Raghvendra Narain Khanna And Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And Anr.
- Case No: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 2132 of 2017
- Judge: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Date: April 8, 2026
