In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations do not justify prosecution; specificity is essential to prevent abuse of process and protect involved parties from unjust trials.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. List revised. None is present on behalf of the private opposite party no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on behalf of the applicant, as he wants to file application for discharge through counsel before the court below.

4. As requested, this application for the applicant no. 5 is dismissed as not pressed and the applicant no. 5 is permitted to appear before the concerned court within fifteen days from today through counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today.

5. No coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant no. 5 for a period of two months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

6. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant nos. 1 to 4 and Girijesh Kumar Dwevedi, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents as well as perused the record.

7. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the learned Special C.J.M., (Custom), Lucknow in complaint case no. 3064 of 2015 (Vineeta Verma Vs. Pramod Verma and other) under Sections 498 , 323, 504 I.P.C. as also the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3064 of 2015 pending before learned Special C.J.M, (Custom), Lucknow.

8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of the applicant no. 5 was solemnized with the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Vineeta as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 24.2.2015 thereafter all of sudden on 28.4.2015, the Vineeta (daughter of the opposite party no. 2) left her in-laws' house but her father lodged an F.I.R. against the in-law's of her daughter under Section 364 I.P.C. on 29.4.2015.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that in the aforesaid F.I.R., in the police-station itself, a compromise has been arrived at between the mother of the applicant no. 5 (husband) and the opposite party no. 2 (father of Vineeta) and consequent to which a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 1.5.2015. All the articles, gold ornaments as well as Rs. One Lakh were returned to the complainant, a copy of the compromise has been annexed along with the application as Annexure No. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after considering the statement recorded under Section 161 of Prem Prakash, the final report was submitted.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after compromise she filed a complaint bearing no. 3064 of 2015 against the applicants before the learned Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow on 14.9.2015 on the basis of false and fabricated grounds to mislead the court in which statements of the complainant under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The general allegations of demand of dowry were made against the applicant no. 5 and his relatives and on the basis of such statements, the applicants were summoned, which is under challenge in the present application. Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon the judgements of the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another : 2024 SCC Online SC 759 and Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar , (2022) 6 SCC 599 , submits that for want of any specific allegation, merely on general and vague allegations, the prosecution of the applicants herein is unwanted and is just a malicious prosecution. In support of his submission he relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 3.10.2024 passed in Application No. 27067 of 2019 ( Pranjal Shukla and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and Another ).

11. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Vineeta h