Vague and general allegations in matrimonial disputes do not warrant prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, as they may constitute malicious prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 29.9.2018 as well as the impugned summoning order dated 14.11.2018 in Case No. 4016229 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Mukul and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No. 1, Mukesh Srivastava, is the husband of the opposite party No. 2, Aprajita Srivastava. The marriage of the applicant No. 1 with the opposite party No. 2 was solemnized on 2.12.2010. The applicants are permanent resident of Allahabad and the opposite party No. 2, is the permanent resident of Sahibabad, District-Ghaziabad and the marriage was solemnized at Allahabad. Out of the said wedlock a girl child, namely Kumari Bhavya was born on 19.2.2012 in the matrimonial home at Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submits since the opposite party No. 2 is the eldest girl child of her parent and there was no male child in the family of the opposite party No. 2, therefore, after the marriage, the opposite party No. 2 wanted the applicant No. 1 to live at her parent's house and this was the bone of contention between the parties and in view thereof, the opposite party No. 2 has once left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. However, after much persuasions the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 started living separately on a rented accommodation at Noida. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that initially the applicant No. 1 herein was working as a Clerk in Karur Vaishya Bank at New Delhi and subsequently, he was transferred in March, 2013 to Lucknow, where also the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 were residing separately from the family in a rented accommodation at Lucknow. However, in May, 2013, the opposite party No. 2 deserted the applicant No. 1 herein, without any reasonable excuse. Therefore, the applicant No. 1 herein has filed a Suit No. 1558 of 2014 (Mukul v. Aprajita) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad on 20.11.2014. After filing of the suit, the opposite party No. 2 again joined the applicant No. 1 in April, 2015 and thereupon, the aforesaid suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed as not pressed and since thereafter they were residing at Lucknow, alongwith their daughter. Finally, again on 5.4.2017, the opposite party No. 2 deserted the applicant and started living with her parents at Sahibabad and despite repeated efforts on the part of the applicant No. 1 herein, when the opposite party No. 2 did not turn up, he filed a Suit No. 879 of 2018 (Mukul v. Aprajita) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.5.2018, wherein notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 on 31.5.2018. Learned Counsel submits that as a counterblast to the aforesaid suit filed by the applicant No. 1 herein, the opposite party No. 2 filed three cases on 11.6.2018, one being Complaint Case No. 1138 of 2018 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'the D.V. Act'), which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad. Another being Application No. 451 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad. On the same date she has also filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being the Application No. 1447 of 2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial