Allegations of dowry demands must be specific; vague claims do not justify criminal proceedings under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prem Prakash Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 16.09.2018 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 2313 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Devdutta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0192 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, 'D.P.Act'), P.S.-Fajalganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2017, the opposite party no.2 herein has lodged an F.I.R. against eleven persons which includes her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law & sisters-in-laws (Jeth and Jethani), sisters-in-law (Nand), brothers-in-law (Nandoi). In sum and substance, the allegations are that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 26.04.2012 as per the Hindu rituals and customs with all pomp and show. It is stated that in the marriage the family members of the opposite party no.2 had spent a sum of about Rs.8,00,000/-, which included the jewellery and the articles, given in the marriage. After the marriage all the accused persons arrayed in the F.I.R. started torturing her for less dowry and they also demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-for establishing a business and told her that unless she brings the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,00,000/- she will be tortured. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that in the meantime she became pregnant. Thereupon, she was sent to her parental home by stating that come after six months after the child is born. Thereafter, the husband of the opposite party no.2 took her to her paternal home and after reaching there he quarrelled with her parents for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-and during such quarrel he pushed away the opposite party no.2. due to which her pregnancy got terminated. Since then, no one came forward to take care of the opposite party no.2. When repeatedly the opposite party no.2 called her husband and in-laws then her husband came in August, 2013 and took the opposite party no.2 back and he asked the parents of the opposite party no.2 to give Rs. 50,000/, which was urgently required by him. Then, the mother of the opposite party no.2 took a loan of Rs. 50,000/-and paid to the husband of the opposite party no.2. After reaching in-laws' place the in-laws (arrayed as accused in the F.I.R.) again started torturing her for the rest of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In October, 2014 she again became pregnant and since the in-laws did not take care of her, she became very sick. Then, the in-laws again asked her to go back to her paternal place stating that since your parents have not given the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-as demanded, therefore, nobody will take care of her. Thereupon, the husband of the opposite party no.2 took her to her parental home, where she gave birth to a son, who was aged about three years at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. After the child was born the husband again took her back to the in-laws' place on 15.05.2015, as per the settlement and kept her till October, 2016. During this period again, they continue to demand Rs.1,50,000/-and used to torture her for the same and they used to call her mother saying that either give Rs.1,50,000/-or take their daughter back. On. 06.10.2015, the opposite party no.2 heard that all the in-laws were conspiring to kill her, which was protested by the opposite party no.2, thereupon, they have sent the opposite party no.2 alongwith her child through train to her parent's home. Since then, no one came to take her back and due to the persuasion of relatives the husband of the opposite party no.2 was supposed to come for settlement in the month of November, 2016, however, he did not come and due to