JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—The mother Awadh Kishori widow of Avinash Chandra Srivastava and her three sons Rohit Srivastava, Mohit Srivastava and Rahul Srivastava have prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 15.11.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Case No. 60 of 2010 Smt. Meena v. Rohit and others, by which, learned Magistrate had summoned the applicants to stand trial for offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC and had directed them to appear on 15.12.2010. 2. Underlying facts as are emerged through the affidavit and annexures appended therewith filed alongwith this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. indicate that Smt. Meena Srivastava, respondent No. 2 wife of Dr. Shyam Prasad Srivastava filed a F.I.R., Annexure 1, against the applicants on 26.7.2010 at 3.15 p.m. alleging therein that her daughter Manisha Srivastava was married to applicant No. 1 Rohit Srivastava. In the marriage Rs. Ten lacs and articles were given but the applicants were dissatisfied with the same and always tormented Manisha Srivastava to bring some more money and with that motive tortured her physically and mentally and even assaulted her. When her torture became unbearable Manisha Srivastava, instituted prosecution against the applicants in the Court of Munsif Magistrate at Jalaun, under Section 498-A IPC. She also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also engineered a case under Domestic Violence Act. Accused however got the proceedings of those cases stayed from this Court and started pressurizing victim to compromise the lis and in the eventuality of refusal be threatened to murder her. 3. On 3.7.2010 at 9 a.m. applicants alongwith one unknown person came to the house of respondent No. 2 at Kashi Nath in district Jalaun in a Bolero jeep. Initially, they informed that they had come for a compromise conversation with Manisha Srivastava and therefore, they were allowed access inside the house in the enclose Courtyard (angan). Amidst conversation, Manisha Srivastava was pressurized to withdraw prosecution instituted by her which she flatly refused intimating applicants that when she was being physically assaulted, her father had stood by her and only after his return that she will give a final answer. On this, her mother-in-law Awadh Kishori got infuriated and after taking out a wooden danda from stocked wood lock cluster she started assaulting Manisha Srivastava. On this, her mother-in-law Awadh Kishori got infuriated and after taking out a wooden danda from stocked wood lock cluster she started assaulting Manisha Srivastava. Meena Srivastava, informant Manisha’s mother, raised hue and cry, on which, locality people collected at the spot alongwith informant’s younger daughters, who all intervened and saved her. While retreating from the spot, husband whisked out a revolver and had threatened informant and her family members. Because of the assault, informant had sustained external physical injuries. With the aforesaid allegation, mother scribed the F.I.R. went to police station and lodged it at 3.15 p.m. on 26.7.2010 after 23 days as Crime No. 961 of 2010, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC. 4. Matter was investigated and ultimately, vide Annexure 10 dated 11.8.2010 a F.R. was submitted by the I.O. being FR No. 49 of 2010 on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 60 of 2010 was registered before J.M., Jalaun. Informant was noticed and she filed a protest petition on 6.9.2010 vide Annexure 11. Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun heard the informant / complainant, rejected the protest petition and summoned applicant accused to stand trial for offences under 452, 323, 506 IPC vide order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure 12) fixing 15.12.2010 for their appearance in Court. Hence, this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the entire family to get their aforesaid summoning order quashed. Two facts, which required to be mentioned at this stage are that Meena was examined medically on 4.7.2010 at 9.30 p.m. and following external injuries were noted by Dr. R. Pandey in her medical examination report : 1. Defuse tender swelling over right cheek (3 cm x 3 cm). 2. Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm over right shoulder joint red blue colour. 3. Defuse tender swelling over right knee (4cm x 3 cm) 4. c/o pain back no external visible injury soon. Opinion- All injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object Duration about one day. It also transpires that in between the spouses and their relatives, an effort for mediation was also undertaken in a proceeding of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act but the effort failed vide Annexure 5 to this 482 Cr.P.C. Application. 5. Opinion- All injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object Duration about one day. It also transpires that in between the spouses and their relatives, an effort for mediation was also undertaken in a proceeding of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act but the effort failed vide Annexure 5 to this 482 Cr.P.C. Application. 5. In the background of aforesaid factual matrix, I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel for the applicants assisted by Sri Rupal Chaubey and Sri Anil Srivastava as well as Sri L.R. Khan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA in opposition and have perused the entire record. Contention of learned senior counsel was that so far as the two applicants Mohit and Rahul are concerned there is dearth of credible evidences for their summoning, which has been ordered without any application of mind. The dispute was between husband and wife in which the entire family has been roped in vindictively to seek revenge from them. Both the parties were educated and belonged to respectable families but due to their egoist problem family feud cropped up in between them which resulted in faux pas for both the families. No specific allegation was mentioned by the informant in her protest petition against these two applicants. Matter was investigated and the police had found the prosecution case to be false and, therefore, had filed final report closing the case and learned Magistrate, by allowing the protest petition, had committed error of law. It was next argued that all the injuries sustained by the complainant Smt. Meena Srivastava respondent No. 2 were manufactured. According to her, incident of assault had occurred on 3.7.2010 at 9 a.m. but she got herself medically examined the following day at 8.30 p.m., more than 24 hours. It was mentioned in her medical examination report that her injuries were one day old and, therefore, with the help of her father, who was CMO in Jalaun for more than two decades, respondent No. 2 implicated the entire family of in-laws in a mendacious version only to seek revenge. It was further submitted that jeth and dewar had nothing to do with the wife Smt. Manisha Srivastava and there is paucity of evidence to prosecute them. It was further submitted that jeth and dewar had nothing to do with the wife Smt. Manisha Srivastava and there is paucity of evidence to prosecute them. Husband and wife may litigate with each other but so far as other parental relatives are concerned, they should not be harassed. It was next contended that nobody should be allowed to wield legal power vested with the Court to satisfy his ulterior motives. Vexatious, it was, therefore, submitted that the prosecution of the applicants be quashed and they be set at liberty. 6. Controverting applicants’ submissions, it was contended by opposite counsel that prosecution has brought on record prima facie material for summoning the applicants and, therefore, present 482 Cr.P.C. Application sans merit and be dismissed. At the stage of summoning, under Section 204 Cr.P.C., no meticulous examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and roving inquiry into the evidences tendered before the trial Court is required and, therefore, on the face of it, applicants were rightly summoned and there is no reason for this Court to interfere at the first stage of the trial and scuttle it. It was next argued that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the instant 482 Cr.P.C. Application and the mother as well as daughter Manisha Srivastava (respondent No. 4) deserve a full-fledged trial to establish their charges. It was concludingly argued that present 482 Cr.P.C. Application lacks merit and be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have appreciated the various documentary evidences available on the record. What transpire is that there was a dispute between husband and wife because of which proceeding under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the wife against her husband and the entire family. Wife has not deposed against the two applicants Dr. Mohit Srivastava and Rahul Srivastava at any earlier point of time. It is further revealed that if the wife is not allowed to prosecute these applicants, she will not suffer any loss. Perusal of the record further indicate that so far as two applicants Dr. Mohit Srivastava and Rahul Srivastava are concerned, there is no credible material for their summoning. In the FIR, mother had made general allegation against them. The only specific role assigned therein is to the mother-in-law and husband. During investigation, prosecution allegations were found to be false and, therefore, final report was submitted. Mohit Srivastava and Rahul Srivastava are concerned, there is no credible material for their summoning. In the FIR, mother had made general allegation against them. The only specific role assigned therein is to the mother-in-law and husband. During investigation, prosecution allegations were found to be false and, therefore, final report was submitted. It is also culled out from Annexure 5 that the parties never wanted to live together and they wanted to separate and seek divorce. No compromise, could be arrived at in the Mediation Centre. Km. Suchika, sister of the wife, has also not anointed any specific overt act to the above two applicants who are Jeth and Dewar. She was unable to explain as to why her mother was assaulted and not the wife herself. 8. On an overall analysis of the entire fact from a pragmatic angle, it is revealed that in fact prosecution of the two sons, who are jeth and dewar of respondent No. 3 is totally malicious. Final report was submitted in their favour. On the basis of statement by respondent No. 3 and sister of wife that they were summoned. Record does not indicate disclosure of any specific offence against them. Learned Magistrate fell in error in summoning them on mere asking. There was dearth of credible material for their prosecution for charges under Sections 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. No threats were hurled by them. These two applicants were empty handed and it is very puerile to cogitate that from Jalaun, they will travel all the way to Lucknow only to assault wife’s mother. No credit worthy allegation has been leveled by the respondent No. 2 against them. In such a view, I am of the opinion that so far as Rahul Srivastava and Dr. Mohit Srivastava are concerned, their prosecution is imbibed with mala fides. 9. There is yet another reason for taking the above view and that is although the father of the wife is a Medical Officer in Jalaun for more than two decades yet his wife Smt. Meena Srivastava waited for the whole day to get her medically examined. She did not apply any ointment etc. on her injuries and kept it for 24 hours. Incident is alleged to have occurred on 3.7.2010 but F.I.R. was lodged on 26.7.2010, after an enormous delay of twenty three days without offering any explanation for the same. She did not apply any ointment etc. on her injuries and kept it for 24 hours. Incident is alleged to have occurred on 3.7.2010 but F.I.R. was lodged on 26.7.2010, after an enormous delay of twenty three days without offering any explanation for the same. It is also not understandable as to why the mother-in-law will pick up a wooden stick and assault the informant. 10. Looking to the fact that there was a family feud in between both the families and they were litigating tooth and nail, in my humble opinion prosecution of the husband and mother-in-law does not require to be scuttled down at its inception. In my aforesaid view, I am forfeited by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 SC 3363, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court as under : “27. Admittedly, appellant No. 1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant No. 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent No. 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.” 11. Wrapping up the discussion, this 482 Cr.P.C. Application is allowed in part. So far as application on behalf of the husband Rohit Srivastava and mother-in-law Smt. Awadh Kishori are concerned, it is stands dismissed but prosecution of applicants Dr. Mohit Srivastava and Rahul Srivastava in case No. 60 of 2010, Smt. Meena v. Rohit Srivastava, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun are hereby quashed. ——————