In a case that began as a bitter fallout between a husband and wife, the Allahabad High Court has stepped in to quash criminal proceedings against the woman’s parents, ruling that the allegations against them lacked clarity and legal weight. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan delivered the verdict on 17 October 2025, bringing relief to Smt. Heerawati and her husband, who had been summoned by a lower court for allegedly abusing and threatening their son-in-law.
Background
The case arose from a marital dispute between Gyanendra Sharma and his wife Pratibha Nanda, who married in February 2019. Within months, the relationship soured. The wife left her matrimonial home in April 2021, allegedly taking her belongings without informing anyone.
A few days later, the husband claimed that his in-laws – Heerawati and her husband – along with four others, stormed into his house, hurled abuses, damaged property, and threatened to kill him if he tried to bring back his wife. Based on this complaint, a summoning order dated 7 January 2022 was issued under Section 504 (intentional insult) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the wife’s side told a different story. They alleged that Pratibha had been harassed for dowry – a demand of ₹5 lakh and a four-wheeler – and was eventually sent back to her parental home. She lodged a police complaint against her husband and his family under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, following which a chargesheet was filed against them.
Court's Observations
Justice Chauhan noted that the lower court had summoned the in-laws without sufficient legal basis. Referring to Section 504 IPC, the court observed that the complaint failed to describe what exact words or actions constituted the "intentional insult" that could provoke a breach of peace.
"The complainant has alleged that the applicants abused him, but the nature of words uttered has not been stated. The allegations are vague and lack material particulars," the judge remarked.
On the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506, the court analysed whether any real threat had been made. The complaint merely said that the in-laws and four unknown persons “threatened to kill” the complainant if he came to take his wife back. But again, no specific words or conduct were cited.
"It has not been stated in the complaint or the statement before the Magistrate as to which person extended the threat of life. Such general allegations, lacking specification, do not meet the requirement of Section 506 IPC," Justice Chauhan said.
The court also underlined the family context of the dispute, observing that the complainant and the accused were related by marriage and embroiled in a larger matrimonial conflict. In such situations, the judge said, courts must carefully scrutinize whether criminal prosecution is being used as a tool of retaliation or harassment.
Decision
Finding no concrete evidence of either insult or criminal intimidation, the High Court concluded that the lower court had erred in summoning the applicants.
In clear terms, Justice Chauhan ordered:
"The summoning order dated 7.1.2022 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 745 of 2021, are hereby quashed."
The application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code-a provision empowering High Courts to prevent abuse of judicial process-was allowed in full.
With this order, the case against Smt. Heerawati and her husband stands closed, at least for now, reaffirming the principle that vague and unspecific allegations cannot sustain a criminal trial.
Case Title: Smt. Heerawati and Another vs State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application under Section 482 No. 17331 of 2023
Counsel for Applicants:
- Sri Ganesh Shankar Srivastava
- Sri Vinod Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Parties:
- Sri Deo Prakash Singh (Government Advocate)
- Sri Krishna Kumar Shukla
