IMPORTANT POINT
Filing multiple complaints with overlapping allegations constitutes misuse of legal process, and courts must scrutinize such cases to prevent abuse.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5.9.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Court No. 1, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2022 whereby summoning order passed by learned A.C.J.M. dated 15.9.2018 in Complaint Case No. 839 of 2018 (Pooja Rani @ Himanshi v. Ashwani Kumar and others) has been affirmed. The petitioners by means of present petition have assailed both orders of the Courts below.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is matrimonial disputes between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. The petitioners are parents-in-law, brother and sister-in-law of the respondent No. 2. Complaint filed before the Court of Magistrate against the petitioners, her husband, with averment that her marriage with opposite party Ashwani Kumar was solemnized on 5.3.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals in which her father had given sufficient dowry and gifts but the opposite parties were not satisfied with the same and demanded additional dowry. They used to harass her and subjected her to physical and matrimonial cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Her husband was having illicit relation with some other lady. She was turned out from her matrimonial home on 26.6.2016 and the opposite parties withheld her stridhan and are using her articles in their own use without any authority. They are also damaging her articles. The petitioner No. 1 Nitin used to tease her. Learned Court below summoned the petitioners and husband of the complainant to face trial under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of D.P. Act vide order dated 15.9.2018. The summoning order was assailed by filing revision before the Court of sessions by present petitioners, however, learned Court below dismissed the revision and affirmed the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.2.2023 without considering the grounds taken in the revision. Long before filing of present complaint, the petitioner No. 1 lodged an F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 52 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC against father and family members of the complainant on 17.3.2017. The petitioner No. 1 is informant and injured in the said F.I.R. and received as many as seven injuries including one incised wound on his person. The instant complaint was filed only to harass the petitioners who are in-laws of the complainant. Another F.I.R. was also got registered by the complainant on 19.3.2017 bearing Crime No. 142 of 2017, under Sections 147, 354-B, 427, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act against her husband and present petitioners with similar allegation which was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by way of application under Section 482 No. 33834 of 2018 wherein matter was referred to mediation centre of this Court and an interim order was passed on 22.11.2018 to the effect that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in said criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2017. Mediation got unsuccessful. The said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending before this Court. Complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has been dismissed by the Delhi Court vide order dated 8.3.2022 for want of prosecution and a copy of order is filed on record. The present complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2 with a view to misuse process of law and harass the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be beneficiary of any alleged demand of dowry.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that no cogent ground has been disclosed by the petitioners before this Court which would warrant interference in concurrent findings of the Court below. There is no infirmity, illega