The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside a summoning order and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against a man accused by his wife of cruelty, assault, criminal intimidation and dowry harassment. Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that the allegations, when read as a whole, pointed to a bitter matrimonial fight with insults hurled from both sides, and not to any offence made out in law.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a complaint filed by Nancy Verma against her husband, Hirendra Kushwaha, his father and his brother. The couple married in December 2015. According to the complainant, no child was born even after three years, and this became a constant source of friction. She alleged she was taunted as a "barren woman" by her in-laws and that her husband refused to get himself medically examined.
The complaint further stated that on the night of 23 November 2020, during a heated argument over the same issue, the complainant called her husband impotent, following which a violent altercation broke out. She alleged she was assaulted and locked in a room, and that her father-in-law and brother-in-law raped her while she was confined there.
A written complaint was eventually filed at Police Station Ghazipur in July 2021, after which a magistrate summoned only the husband under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The father-in-law and brother-in-law were not summoned, and that part of the order was never challenged by the complainant.
Court's Observations
Going through the complaint, the statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the testimony of two family witnesses, the Court noted that the dispute was not one-sided. The bench observed that the exchange of "impotent" and "barren woman" reflected "abuses and counter-abuses by the parties" rather than unilateral cruelty by the husband.
On the dowry allegation, the Court pointed out that the original complaint carried no mention of any dowry demand, and such an allegation surfaced only briefly at the end of the Section 200 CrPC statement, without any date, amount or specifics. Neither of the two supporting witnesses spoke of dowry at all. The Court remarked that this omission "does not inspire confidence" and appeared to be an afterthought.
The judgment also found the broader prosecution story questionable, observing that the version of a father and son together committing rape on the daughter-in-law, allegedly with the husband's and mother-in-law's knowledge, "appears to be highly improbable" when read closely. The Court added that the assault and intimidation charges seemed to be an attempt to add weight to the complaint without independent material, noting there was no medical report or injury evidence on record.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, the Court reiterated that not every marital quarrel amounts to cruelty and that courts must guard against the misuse of Section 498-A in matrimonial disputes.
Decision
Holding that forcing the petitioner to face a full trial would serve no purpose given the lack of credible material, the Court allowed the application.
The summoning order dated 17 January 2023 and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 96681 of 2021, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, were quashed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Hirendra Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another
Case Number: Application U/s 482 No. 10841 of 2025
Judge: Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.
Decision Date: 13 August 2026
