Allahabad High Court
Bhura And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:112874
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 447 of 2025
Bhura And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Mayank, Prasoon Kumar, Sarvjeet Kumar
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. None appears for the opposite party no.2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that, there is matrimonial dispute between the parties and several other cases are also pending between them. It has further been submitted that the alleged incident is only imaginary and no such incident whatsoever had taken place. The said incident has been manipulated and fabricated, only to implicate the applicants and their family members in a false case. It has further been submitted that, there are material contradictions and variations in the statements made by the husband of the victim, namely opposite party no. 2, and that the same incident has been narrated twice with minor alterations and variations. It has further been submitted that one incident is alleged to have occurred on 31.07.2022, wherein the in-laws of opposite party no. 2 allegedly entered his house and took away a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- along with jewellery, ornaments, and other articles. Thereafter, as some settlement, the applicant no. 5 resumed cohabitation and rejoined her matrimonial home. However, it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 subsequently introduced another incident of a similar nature dated 30.03.2023, wherein applicant no. 5 was stated to have attempted to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation relating to the attempt to commit suicide had already been narrated in connection with the earlier incident dated 31.07.2022, and the same allegation has been repeated with slight variations.
5. He further submitted that, in the earlier incident dated 31.07.2022, it was alleged that the applicants had taken away a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-, whereas in the subsequent incident of a similar nature dated 30.03.2023, the applicants were alleged to have taken away a sum of Rs.30,000/- along with household articles and utensils. It has also been submitted that the applicants are alleged to have arrived at the place of occurrence i.e. the house of opposite party no. 2, in an Ertiga car. Learned counsel further submitted that, it would not have been possible to transport household articles and utensils in the said vehicle along with the 5 passengers. He further submitted that opposite party no. 2, in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., narrated the incident alleged to have taken place on 30.03.2023 and stated that a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was taken away by the applicants. However, a similar allegation regarding the taking away of an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- had already been made in relation to the earlier incident dated 31.07.2022. It has, therefore, been submitted that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies between the incidents alleged to have occurred on 31.07.2022 and 30.03.2023. He further submitted that another witness, namely Ishwar Soni (P.W.-2), has been falsely introduced and was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident; therefore, any purported corroboration by the said witness is of no evidentiary value. It was also submitted that another witness, namely Ranjit Kumar, who is stated to be a friend of opposite party no. 2, has subsequently been introduced in the case, although his name did not find mention, either in relation to the incident dated 31.07.2022 or in the alleged incident dated 30.03.2023. The said witness, being a friend of opposite party no. 2, has narrated the incident in a manner similar to that of opposite party no. 2 and has attempted to mix up the incidents of dated 31.07.2022 and 30.03.2023, though both incidents are alleged to be distinct.He also did not mention the alleged taking away of Rs.30,000/- on 30.03.2023; however, he stated that a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was taken away on 31.07.2022.
6. It has also come on record, as per the version of opposite party no. 2, that after the alleged incident dated 31.07.2022, applicant no. 5 rejoined her matrimonial home. He further submitted that although the parents of opposite party no. 2 were also allegedly assaulted, none of them has been examined as a witness in respect of either of the incidents dated 31.07.2022 or 30.03.2023. He further submitted that a false and fabricated case has been set up solely to implicate the applicants in the present matter and that no such incident had ever occurred in the manner, as alleged by opposite party no. 2.
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the incidents in question have, in fact, had taken place and that the veracity thereof is a matter to be determined during trial. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though a counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.
8. From the record, it appears that opposite party no. 2 has alleged the happening of two separate incidents dated 31.07.2022 and 30.03.2023. In respect of the first incident dated 31.07.2022, it has been alleged, that the applicants had taken away a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- along with jewellery and other ornaments kept in the house. With regard to the second incident dated 30.03.2023, opposite party no. 2 has alleged that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was taken away. However, while recording his statement, opposite party no. 2 appears to have narrated the same story relating to the incident dated 31.07.2022 and has mixed up both the alleged incidents. Opposite party no. 2 has further stated that applicant no.5 attempted to commit suicide on two occasions. However, applicant no. 5 has not initiated any legal proceedings explaining the circumstances, under which she was allegedly compelled to take such an extreme step. Opposite party no. 2 has also introduced two witnesses, namely Ishwar Soni and Ranjit Kumar, who admittedly are not eyewitnesses to either of the alleged incidents. Both the said witnesses have merely reiterated the version of opposite party no. 2 regarding the alleged assault, without having personally witnessed the incidents. Moreover, both witnesses have failed to distinguish between the two alleged incidents dated 31.07.2022 and 30.03.2023.
9. Thus, upon consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of opposite party no. 2, and the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, material contradictions and inconsistencies appear on record. Prima facie, the entire prosecution story appears to be doubtful and appears to be embellished.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.24743 of 2023 (Rameshwar Saraswat @ Sonu Vs. Bhura and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura, is liable to be set aside. Hence set aside.
11. The application U/s 482 is allowed, accordingly.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
May 14, 2026
Mini
Â
Â
