ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no. 1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2559 of 2017, State vs. Arun Vikram and Another arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad and cognizance/summoning order dated 1.9.2017 passed in the aforesaid case. 3. Applicant no. 1 is husband and applicant no. 2 is father-in-law of Smt. Savita Kumari (daughter of opposite party no. 2). The opposite party no. 2 is mother-in-law of applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 1 is Head Master in primary school and applicant no. 2 is retired Principal. 4. On 20.1.2017, opposite party no. 2 lodged FIR against the applicants and co-accused Priti, Archana and Kunta Devi (daughters of applicant no. 2) registered as case crime no. 4 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Allahabad alleging that marriage of her daughter Savita Kumari was solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 30.1.2015 and all the demand of the applicants were fulfilled, even then, the applicants were not satisfied and there was continuous demand of Rs. 2 lac from the side of the applicants. It is further alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of demanded dowry her daughter was mentally and physically tortured in her matrimonial house. It is submitted that FIR dated 20.1.2017 was challenged by the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Savita Kumari) alongwith applicants and others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2692 of 2017, in which their arrest was stayed by this Court during the investigation vide order dated 17.2.2017 appended as Annexure No. 2 to the application. Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 26.7.2017 only against the applicants, on which A.C.J.M. Court No. 2, Allahabad took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. 5. Writ Petition No. 2692 of 2017, in which their arrest was stayed by this Court during the investigation vide order dated 17.2.2017 appended as Annexure No. 2 to the application. Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 26.7.2017 only against the applicants, on which A.C.J.M. Court No. 2, Allahabad took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. 5. At the time of filing of this application, vide order dated 7.11.2017 of this Court, the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Savita Kumari (wife of applicant no. 1 and daughter of the opposite party no. 2) were directed to appear before the court concerned where the charge-sheet has been submitted for getting their statement recorded. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad was also directed to furnish a report as per observation and direction given in the order dated 7.11.2017. The said order dated 7.11.2017 is reproduced herein-below:- "Heard Mr. Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Sudhir Dixit who has appeared for the opposite party No. 2, the informant. The instant application arises out of a dispute between two families. The first applicant is stated to have married one Savita, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The applicant No. 2, the father is a retired Principal. It is not disputed that the applicant No. 1 and Smt. Savita were married with the consent of the families. It was admittedly an arranged marriage. However, a first information report has come to be lodged at the instance of the mother, the opposite party No. 2 laying various allegations against the applicant No. 1 as well as his wife. The Court from the records further notes that earlier the applicants had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2692 of 2017, Smt. Savita Kanaujiya @ Savita Kumari and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein interim protection against arrest was granted in favour of the applicant and his wife on 17 February 2017. By a subsequent order dated 24 April 2017 passed in the said petition the matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court. The Court is informed that mediation could not succeed. By a subsequent order dated 24 April 2017 passed in the said petition the matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court. The Court is informed that mediation could not succeed. Sri Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the primary cause for failure of mediation was an insistence upon the part of the applicants to refuse visitation rights to the opposite party No. 2 and Savita. He submitted that the attitude adopted by the applicants was that Smt. Savita would not be permitted to visit the house of her parents. This contention is however denied by Sri Ali, learned counsel who appeared for the applicants. Be that as it may, the Court prima-facie notes that both the applicant No. 1 and Smt. Savita are admittedly majors and were married with the consent of parties by way of an arranged marriage. Upon the failure of mediation the charge sheet has come to be submitted against the applicants. Before this Court Smt. Savita has filed an Affidavit, in which she states that she is living with applicant No. 1 of her own free will and volition and without any duress or pressure from any side. One of the peculiar aspects which the Court notes from the record is that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not come to be recorded till date. Learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of the Court to the extracts of the case diary to submit that although the police authorities made various attempts to record her statements, circumstances were created in her family home, as a result of which the police authorities were constrained to note that it was impossible to record her statement in an independent atmosphere. Bearing in mind the aforesaid fact coupled with the submissions of learned counsels which primarily was that a settlement and reconciliation was possible, it becomes relevant to issue interim directions for recordal of the statements of Smt. Savita, her husband as well as the opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, the following interim directions are issued by consent. Both the applicants 1 and 2 as well as Smt. Savita shall appear before the concerned court in which the charge sheet has been submitted for recordal of their statements. The court concerned shall also record the statements of opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, the following interim directions are issued by consent. Both the applicants 1 and 2 as well as Smt. Savita shall appear before the concerned court in which the charge sheet has been submitted for recordal of their statements. The court concerned shall also record the statements of opposite party No. 2. It shall be open for the concerned court to ascertain whether there is exertion of any pressure or influence upon Smt. Savita. In case the court forms the opinion that the facts and circumstances so warrant, it shall be open to it to provide for the lodging of Smt. Savita in appropriate facilities for a period of forty eight hours and thereafter to proceed to record her statements again. The court shall upon recordal of the statements forward for consideration of this Court its report with regard to the nature of issues and disputes which appear to exist inter partes and whether the same can possibly be resolved. For the purposes of recordal of statements before the concerned court, this Court designates 24 November 2017. Both the learned counsels appearing for the parties have on instructions furnished an undertaking that their respective clients shall present themselves before the concerned court along with a certified copy of this order for further consideration by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad. The concerned Magistrate shall undertake the examination as directed hereinabove and furnish a report before this Court within a period of three weeks from today and in any case not later than 4 December 2017. Post this matter before the appropriate Court on 4 December 2017 as fresh. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants arising from Criminal Case No. 2559 of 2017, State vs. Arun Vikram and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad on the basis of charge sheet dated 26 July 2017 as also the summoning order dated 1 September 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate." 6. In compliance of order dated 7.11.2017, the statement of the applicants and Smt. Savita as well as opposite party no. In compliance of order dated 7.11.2017, the statement of the applicants and Smt. Savita as well as opposite party no. 2 (informant) were recorded before the concerned court and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad submitted report dated 29.11.2017 alongwith aforesaid statements before this Court, which is on record of this case and is reproduced herein-below:- ^^fo"k;& /kkjk 482 ds ÁkFkZuk i= la[;k 35079@2017 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 07-11-2017 ds vuqikyu esa vk[;kA mijksDr ekeys esa fouez fuosnu gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk eq>s vfHk;qDr v:.k foØe] MkŒ jke Álkn dUukSft;k ekeys ds dfFkr ihfMrk Jherh lfork o oknh eqdnek Jherh jkuh nsoh ds c;ku vafdr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA Jherh lfork ij fdlh Ádkj dk ncko ;k ÁHkko ds ruko ds lEcU/k esa irk yxkus gsrq Hkh bl U;k;ky; dks NwV nh x;h Fkh rFkk vk[;k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks fHktok;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 23-11-2017 dks oknh eqdnek Jherh jkuh nsoh }kjk ihfMrk Jherh lfork dks 48 ?k.Vs oknh eqdnek ds lkFk j[ks tkus dk vkns'k fn;s tkus gsrq ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftl ij lquokbZ gsrq fnukad 24-11-2017 fu;r dj nh x;h FkhA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr frfFk fnukad 24-11-2017 dks Jherh lfork] mlds ifr v:.k foØe] llqj jke Álkn o oknh eqdnek Jherh jkuh nsoh vius vius fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vk;sA esjs }kjk Jherh lfork ckdh lHkh i{kdkj dks U;k;ky; d{k ds ckgj Hkstdj c;ku fn;s tkus ds ckcr o ml ij fdlh Ádkj ds ncko o ÁHkko ds ckjs esa IkwNk x;k rks mlus ml ij dksbZ ncko ;k ruko u ggsuk dgrs gq;s c;ku nsus dh bPNk O;Dr dhA mlds i'pkr esjs }kjk esjs foJke d{k esa oknh eqdnek@ihfMrk dh ekrk o ihfM+rk ds e/; okrkZ djkbZ x;hA Jherh lfork us okrkZ ds le; dgk fd ml ij fdlh dk dksbZ ncko ugh gS og viuh Lora= bPNk ls c;ku nsus gsrq mifLFkr gSA lkFk gh Jherh lfork us viuh ekrk oknh eqdnek ds lkFk tkus ls Li"V bUdkj viuh ekrk ds le{k gh fd;kA Jherh lfork dh ekrk oknh eqdnek Jherh jkuh nsoh }kjk Hkh vkilh ckrphr ds le; ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd Jherh lfork le>nkjks dh rjg ckr dj jgh gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr esa esjs }kjk Jherh jkuh nsoh dk c;ku vafdr fd;k x;kA mlds ckn yap ckn MkŒ jke Álkn dUUkkSft;k o v:.k foØe ds c;ku esjs }kjk vafdr fd;s x;sA yap ds ckn 3-30 cts rd ckj ckj Ikqdkj djk;s tkus ds ckotwn oknh eqdnek dh vksj ls ÁkFkZuk i= fnukafdr 23-11-2017 ij cy nsus gsrq dksbZ mifLFkr ugh gqvkA pwafd Jherh jkuh nsoh }kjk vius c;ku esa Hkh ;g dgk x;k Fkk fd og viuh yM+dh Jherh lfork dks vius lkFk ugha ys tk;sxhA vr% esjs }kjk iqu% Jherh lfork ls c;ku fn;s tkus ds ckcr iwNs tkus ij mlus dgk fd ml ij fdlh Ádkj dk ncko ugha gS viuh bPNk ls c;ku nsus vkbZ gSA lkFk gh viuh ekrk ds lkFk tkus ls iqu% bUdkj fd;kA Jherh lfork ls U;k;ky; esa dh x;h ckrphr ls] Jherh lfork dh mldh ekrk ls foJke d{k esa djk;h x;h ckrphr ls rFkk mldh ekrk }kjk Hkh ;g Lohdkj fd;s tkus dks ns[krs gq;s fd Jherh lfork le>nkjh ls ckr dj jgh gSA eq>s ,slk Árhr ugha gqvk fd Jherh lfork ij c;ku nsrs le; fdlh ncko ;k ÁHkko ls dksbZ ruko gSA vr% mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjs }kjk mlh fnu tuin U;k;ky; dh prqFkZ Js.kh efgyk deZpkjh dh mifLFkfr esa Jherh lfork dk c;ku esjs foJke d{k esa vafdr fd;k x;kA oknh eqdnek Jherh jkuh nsoh }kjk vius c;ku esa dgk x;k fd lfork ds llqjky okys lfork dks mlls ckr ugha djus nsrsA vc lfork dgrh gS fd og [kq'k gSA tc ehfM,'ku ls.Vj vkbZ Fkh rc Hkh og dg jgh Fkh fd og [kq'k gSA og lqyg pkgrh gS] yM+dh dk ?kj ugha fcxkMuk pkgrhA yM+dh llqjky esa gh jgs ysfdu mlds ?kj Hkh vkrh tkrh ,oa feyrh&tqyrh jgsA gkypky ysrh jgsA vkt og viuh yM+dh dks lkFk ugha ys tk;sxhA vc mldh yM+dh dgrh gS fd mls fdlh us cnpyu ugha dgk gSA xokg us c;ku esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd Jherh lfork dksVZ esa dg jgh gS fd og [kq'k gSA Jherh lfork ds ifr v:.k foØe }kjk vius c;ku esa dgk x;k fd mldh iRuh vius eka HkkbZ;ks ls ckr djs rks mls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA mls viuh llqjky tkus esa [krjk gSA mlds o mldh iRuh ds chp dksbZ fookn ugh gSA mldk o llqjky okyks dk vkuk&tkuk 'kq: rks gks gh ldrk gS] ysfdu llqjky okyks us gkykr [kjkc dj fn;s gSA MkŒ jke Álkn dUukSft;k }kjk c;ku esa dgk x;k fd lfork ds HkkbZ jkds'k dUukSft;k tks njksxk gS muds ?kj dks vius fglkc ls pykuk pkgrs gSA mldh lfork cgqr vPNh gSA mlls dHkh u rks f'kdk;r Fkh u vkt gSA og viuh cgw dks dHkh mldh eka o HkkbZ;ks ls ckr djus ls ugha jksdrsA og [kqn gh muls ckr ugha djuk pkgrhA ;fn lfork vius ?kj tkuk pkgs rks mUgs dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA ekeys dh dfFkr ihfMrk Jherh lfork us vius c;ku esa dgk fd mls llqjky esa dksbZ ijs'kkuh ugha gSA mlls ngst ugha ekaxrs u gh mls rax djrs gSA og viuh eka HkkbZ;ks ds ikl ugha tkuk pkgrhA mUgksaus mlds llqjky okyks ds f[kykQ >wBh dk;Zokgh dh gSA Hkfo"; esa mldk viuh eka ls esytksy gks ldrk gS] ysfdu vHkh ugha gks ldrkA vc mldk eu ek;ds tkus dks ugha djrkA mlds llqjky okys mls ek;ds esa Qksu djus ls ugha jksdrs] tc ls ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ gqbZ gS] rc ls mldh eka o HkkbZ [kqn gh Qksu ugha djrsA og viuh llqjky esa 'kkafr ls jg jgh gSA og llqjky esa viuh eka HkkbZ dh n[ky vUnkth ugha pkgrhA mldh llqjky okyks us mls ek;ds tkus ls dHkh ugha jksdkA bl Ádkj i{kdkjx.k ds c;ku vafdr fd;s tkus ij ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd Jherh lfork o mldh llqjky okyks ds e/; orZeku esa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA mHk; i{k ds c;kuksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jherh lfork ds ek;ds okyks o llqjky okyks esa vkil esa eueqVko gSa ;g lEHko gS fd iwoZ esa Jherh lfork dk viuh llqjky esa dksbZ gYdk&QqYdk eueqVko jgk gks rFkk mlh le; dh ?kVukvksa ij lfork ls mlds ek;ds okyks dh ckrphr u gksus ds dkj.k HkzkfUr ds vk/kkj ij mldh ekrk dks yxk gks fd mldh iq=h dk llqjky okyks }kjk ngst ds fy;s mRihM+u fd;k tk jgk gSA ysfdu vc pawfd ihfMrk }kjk U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh ekrk dh mifLFkfr esa U;k;ky; d{k esa o foJke d{k esa Li"V :i ls ,sls fdlh mRihM+u ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk llqjky esa [kq'k gksuk dgk x;k gSA vr% orZeku esa Jherh lfork o mldh llqjky okyksa ds e/; dksbZ fookn gksuk ÁdV ugha gksrk gSA ;|fi Jherh lfork ds ek;ds okyks ,oa llqjky okyksa ds e/; erHksn vHkh Hkh tkjh gS] tks nksuks i{kksa }kjk ldkjkRed ekgkSy esa vkilh ckrphr ls /khjs&/khjs gh lekIr gksuk lEHko gSA vk[;k e; ewy c;kuksa ds voyksdukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh lsok esa lknj Ásf"kr gSA fnukad 29-11-2017 ¼lquhy dqekj½ vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV d{k la[;k 2 bykgkcknA** 7. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad in his report dated 29.11.2017 has clearly mentioned that from the statements of the parties concerned as well as victim, it appears that now there is no dispute between the parties. The parents of Smt. Savita are having acrimonious relations with the applicants. It is also mentioned that the statement of victim (Smt. Savita/wife of applicant no. 1) was recorded in presence of her mother/informant, but she has clearly denied the allegations levelled by her mother against the applicants by contending that she is not being harassed in any manner by the applicants in her matrimonial home. Smt. Savita/victim in presence of the opposite party no. 2 has clearly stated that she is very happy with her husband and leading her matrimonial life happily in peaceful manner. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 7.12.2017 referred this matter for mediation, so that frayed relations between the parties concerned may come to an end but as per the report of mediation and conciliation centre dated 8.3.2018, mediation between the parties failed. 9. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that the victim has no grievance against the applicants, which is very much clear from the statement of the victim recorded before the court concerned pursuant to order dated 7.11.2017 of this Court. 10. The report dated 29.11.2017 also clearly reveals that the alleged allegations of harassment of victim by the applicants are not correct and false. In the present application, the victim Smt. Svita Kumari is the deponent of this case also and living with her husband (applicant no. 1) at the place of posting of her husband. 11. Today, victim Smt. Savita Kumari is also present before this Court and on confrontation being made by her in presence of learned counsel for the parties, she has clearly stated that she is happy with the applicants in her matrimonial home. The allegations levelled by her mother against her husband and other family members are wholly false and just because of ego problem of opposite party no. 2 with the applicants, because they did not invite the opposite party no. 2 on the birthday of her son and ritual ceremony was performed in her matrimonial house. 12. The allegations levelled by her mother against her husband and other family members are wholly false and just because of ego problem of opposite party no. 2 with the applicants, because they did not invite the opposite party no. 2 on the birthday of her son and ritual ceremony was performed in her matrimonial house. 12. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, the Apex Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 152 (2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13. Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicants by contending that though it has come on record that the victim is not being harassed but in reality the facts was otherwise, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 being mother of Smt. Savita was very much worried about the welfare of her daughter, ergo, she lodged the impugned FIR. He further submitted that in case the victim Smt. Savita is leading her life happily in her matrimonial house with the applicants, the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance. 14. Considering the statement of Smt. Savita (wife of applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2)/victim, as well as report dated 29.11.2017 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad, this Court feels that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants is clear abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, in order to secure the end of justice, the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court. 15. 15. In view of above, all other and further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2559 of 2017, State vs. Arun Vikram and Another arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad is hereby quashed. 16. The application is, accordingly, allowed.