Criminal process cannot be used as a counterblast to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes.

The applicants (in-laws of Opposite Party No. 2) challenged a summoning order dated 20.01.2016 and a revisional order dated 08.03.2017.

Opposite Party No. 2 (husband) filed a complaint alleging that on 12.05.2014, the applicants trespassed into his house, assaulted him, and snatched Rs. 10,000/- due to ongoing matrimonial disputes with his wife.

The Magistrate summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 452, 392, and 506 of the IPC.

The applicants contended the complaint was a malicious "counter-blast" to existing matrimonial proceedings, including maintenance and divorce petitions filed between 2012 and 2013.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the husband against his in-laws constituted an abuse of the process of law intended to wreak vengeance due to matrimonial discord.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s summoning order reflected proper application of judicial mind regarding the specific roles of the accused and the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.) regarding the inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the landmark guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically clause (g), regarding maliciously instituted proceedings.

Summoning is a serious matter requiring the Magistrate to record satisfaction of a prima facie case with reasoning as per Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and GHCL Employees Stock Options Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.

The Court referenced Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. regarding the duty of courts to "read between the lines" in frivolous cases.

The Court observed that the complaint arose from a deep-seated matrimonial dispute, noting that three legal proceedings were already pending before the incident.

Upon examining the depositions under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Court found that the allegations were "vague and omnibus," with no specific roles assigned to any of the five applicants regarding the assault or the theft.

The Court scrutinized the evidence and found material contradictions; for instance, witnesses provided conflicting details about the money allegedly taken, and did not establish the "violence or fear" requisite for a robbery charge under Section 392 IPC.

The Court determined that the Magistrate acted mechanically by failing to discuss the statutory ingredients of the sections invoked or the individual involvement of the elders (applicants), who were instead "roped in" to exert pressure.

The Court held that the summoning order and the revisional order were unsustainable as they lacked application of judicial mind to the facts and law.

The Court allowed the application and quashed the Summoning Order dated 20.01.2016, the Revisional Order dated 08.03.2017, and the underlying criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 545/2014.