General and vague allegations in matrimonial disputes do not warrant prosecution; specific instances of criminal conduct are necessary for charges to proceed.

JUDGMENT :

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.5.2019 as well as the charge-sheet dated 20.4.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 is the father-in-law of the applicant No. 1 herein. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2, namely Meesha Shukla/opposite party No. 3, was married with the applicant No. 1/Pranjal Shukla, on 7.12.2015, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the said marriage the opposite party No. 2 has spent a huge amount of money. After the marriage the in-laws of the daughter of the opposite party no 2, namely Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma, were not satisfied with the dowry and gifts given during the marriage. However, it has been categorically stated in the F.I.R. that prior to marriage there was no demand of money. However, when the marriage was settled, in the name of various customs, they demanded money. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that after the marriage the husband and the in-laws i.e., the applicants herein started making comments against her and said that her father has selected an IIT qualified groom, then, dowry ought to have been given. When the opposite party No. 3 told that her father is not having the capacity to meet all the demands, then, they started abusing and assaulting the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. His daughter was compelled too much that he had to give the articles worth Rs. 15 to 20 lakh and cash as well. Even after such payments and giving of the articles the applicant No. 1 was not satisfied and he used to misbehave and assault his daughter. When it was informed by the opposite party No. 3 to her in-laws they also did not pay any attention to the same and told that money has to be brought in. It is also stated that the applicant No. 1 used to drink and also used to watch porn films and used to insist for unnatural sex with the opposite party No. 3 and used to be nude before her and also used to masturbate. When the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 used to object to the same, he did not pay any heed to her objections. The applicant No. 1, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, tried to kill his daughter and strangled her, when it was objected by the daughter of the opposite party No. 2, then, the applicant No. 1 left the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 with her in-laws and went alone Singapore. When the opposite party No. 3 insisted to go to Singapore, then, the in-laws told her that unless all their demands are fulfilled, she will stay there at Mumbai only. When the opposite party No. 2, did not fulfil their demands they have sent his daughter at Noida with the opposite party No. 2 and her husband started living at Singapore. When the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 insisted to her husband to go to Singapore, he told her to bring money from her parents.

4. After staying for about eight to nine months at Noida the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 went to Singapore on 27.7.2017, where she found the applicant No. 1 consuming the drugs and the alcohol. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that for about a year the applicant No. 1 was torturing his daughter at Singapore and due to his activities his daughter had to seek employment and entire salary was spent by her to fulfil the demands of the applicant No. 1. When the opposite party No. 3 told a