The main legal point established in the judgment is that retaliatory actions by one party against the other in response to legal proceedings initiated by the other party may not be valid grounds for criminal charges, and such proceedings may be liable to be quashed.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the accused persons, Anupriya Pal and four others against the judgment and final order dated 31.1.2017 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Application under Section 482 No. 11224 of 2013, whereby the High Court dismissed the application of the accused persons seeking quashing of the proceedings and summons dated 3.7.2012 passed by the ACJM, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 6714 of 2011.

3. Appellant No. 1, Anupriya Pal is the wife of Respondent No. 2, Sandeep Pal and their marriage was solemnized on 6.7.2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, Appellant No. 1 was in her final year of MCA and Respondent No. 2 had completed his M.B.B.S. On 13.9.2007, Appellant No. 1 took admission in the Dr. Kedar Nath Modi Institute of Engineering & Technology, Modi Nagar, to pursue an M.B.A. Thereafter, she moved to her parents' house at Betul, Madhya Pradesh, sinceRespondent No. 2 allegedly started demanding dowry. In February 2008, Respondent No. 2 got a job as an ad-hoc medical officer at the Primary Health Centre, Jhallar, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh. During that time, Respondent No. 2 stayed with Appellant No. 1 in her parental house till 26.4.2008. Thereafter, he moved to Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh, to join office as a permanent medical officer. On 8.6.2008, Appellant No. 1 gave birth to their first child at her parents' house. Thereafter, she moved to her matrimonial house with her child, but shifted back to her parental home in a few months along with the child due to harassment by Respondent No. 2.

On 1.12.2008, on account of harassment by Respondent No. 2 and demands for dowry, Appellant No. 1 made a complaint before the Family Conciliation Centre, Police Station at Betul, Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Conciliation Centre and assured Appellant No. 1 that he would not harass her and hence Appellant No. 1 agreed to reside in her matrimonial house. On 11.7.2009, Appellant No. 2 came to Bagpat and lodged a written complaint against Respondent No. 2 and his family members. On 18.7.2009 and 1.8.2009, Appellant No.1 made complaints to the Conciliation Centre against Respondent No. 2 once again for ill-treating and harassing her. However, Appellant No. 1 gave birth to their second child during the interregnum. On 5.6.2011, Appellant No. 1 moved to her parents' house and filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the First Class Magistrate, Betul, seeking Rs. 35,000/- as monthly maintenance from Respondent No. 2. Only thereafter, as a counter blast, Respondent No. 2 filed first information against the appellants before Police Station, Murad Nagar for the offenceof cheating and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, i.e., for offences punishable under Section 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

On 2.12.2011, Appellant No.1 lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC and under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, at Police Station Ganz Chowki, Betul and the proceedings are stated to have been pending. On 3.7.2012, the learned ACJM, Ghaziabad issued summons for trial of the accused (appellants herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 504, IPC based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 in Complaint Case No. 6714 of 2011. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Respondent No. 2, who has been served notice, remained absent. Thus, amicus curiae were appointed to argue and assist the court on his behalf. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned amicus curiae as well as the advocate for the State, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 is a counter blast to a number of proceedings lodged against him by Appellant No. 1.

5. Appellant No. 1 is the daughter of Appell