Criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes must be founded on specific, verifiable allegations. Vague or omnibus accusations without supporting instances regarding the time, place, or individual roles are insufficient to sustain a summoning order and constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Applicants for quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 24.5.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Agra as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.22 of 2017, Smt. Anju Vs. Anil Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2-complainant submits that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit and the matter may be heard on merits. The opportunity of filing counter affidavit is hereby closed.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is being heard.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for Applicants that Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant. The Applicants are summoned by order dated 11.9.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of complaint would go to show that general, vague and omnibus allegations have been made against Applicants, who are family members of husband. One of the allegation in the complaint is that on 21.3.2016, applicants along with husband of opposite party no.2 have demanded dowry of Rs.5 lacs and have abused the opposite party no.2. Such an incident has not been substantiated in the statement of the complaint, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as in the aforesaid statement general allegation with regard to demand of dowry has been made. Specific allegation of 21.3.2016 (in statement of complainant) pertains to assault being made however, there is no injury report on record.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Applicants that prior to filing of aforesaid complaint, the husband of opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Agra on 29.3.2016 against the conduct of the wife on the fact that opposite party no.2 has voluntarily left the home on 21.3.2016. After the aforesaid complaint dated 29.3.2016, the matter was referred to the Family Conciliation Centre where the complainant had filed an application dated 26.4.2016 (which is at page 41 of the paper book) wherein there is no allegation against the Applicants and the sole allegation is against the husband. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the criminal proceedings against the Applicants are bad in law.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for Applicants and submits that the Applicants are not permitting the complainant-opposite party no.2 to reside in the matrimonial home.

8. On a query being made to learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 with regard to the document at page 41 of the paper book, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the aforesaid application is made before the Family Conciliation Centre by the complainant. There are serious allegation with regard to demand of dowry in the comp