The judgment establishes the principle that specific allegations and active involvement in the matter are necessary to make out a case of cognizable offence, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record on board.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 368 of 2021 (Ritu Kumari vs. Virendra and Others) under Sections- 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in brevity D.P. Act) Police Station-Karari, District-Kaushambi.

3. Facts culled out from the avertments as made in the instant application supported by an affidavit are that the respondent no. 2 (wife of the applicant no. 1) has moved a complaint dated 24.3.2021 against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and two sisters-in-law levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry with an averment that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 9.3.2019 with applicant no. 1 in accordance with the hindu rites and rituals; that as per their capacity, family members of the complainant have given dowry and sent her with her-in-laws; that when she reached at matrimonial home she has been harassed for demand of four wheeler; that when she reached her maternal home, she narrated her ordeals qua the demand of four wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh cash, however, her family members have sent her back to the in-laws house by giving assurance that problem will be shorted out in some days; that family members of the complainant came at the residence of her in-laws and shown their inability to fulfill the demand of four wheeler and Rs. 1 lakh; that she has been beaten up many times and sent to her maternal house; that she has been subjected to torture and cruel behavior of her in-laws, however, in the meantime, she gave birth to a boy child on 28.9.2020; that for demand of dowry, she has been kicked out on 16.01.2021 by her in-laws from the house; that husband of the complainant has stated that the child is not born from his loin, therefore, he will not keep the complainant with him and he will solemnized second marriage; that the complainant has already moved a representation/application to the Police Station concerned and the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi, however, till date no action has been taken, therefore, accused/respondents may be summoned and punished.

4. Learned Magistrate, after going through the contents of the complaint and the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has issued processed against the present applicants viz. husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and one sister-in-law, exculpating Rubi Kushwaha (another sister-in-law), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act vide its order impugned dated 14.9.2021.

5. Assailing the summoning order under challenge, learned counsel for the applicants (accused) has submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been made against the present applicants without any incriminating material on record and all the family members of the husband has illegally been roped in the criminal proceedings based on the general allegations and no specific instance has been given by the complainant attributing the accused concerned for making out a case of cognizable offence. It is further submitted that Priya Kushwaha (applicant no. 4) has illegally been implicated being a sister-in-law who is residing in Noida and doing private job of Nurse, therefore, no case is made out against her. However, another sister-inlaw namely Rubi Kushwaha, who was arrayed as an accused no. 5 in the complaint, has rightly been exempted from summoning. It is further submitted that no cognizable offence is made out against the present applicants. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the cases of Geeta Mehr