The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and roles of the accused in the complaint, and the potential abuse of process of law in allowing the continuation of proceedings based on vague and general complaints.

Swapna Joshi, J.

By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the First Information Report bearing No.427/2017, dated 18.07.2017 filed by respondent no.2 at Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent no.2-complainant Smt. Antara Nilesh Sheshkar had lodged a complaint on 19.09.2016 with Police Station, Juni Kamptee alleging that respondent no.2 was having love affairs with one Nilesh Wasudeo Sheshkar and on the pretext of promise to marry with respondent no.2, physical relations were established between them. However, when respondent no.2 asked Nilesh to marry with her, he refused to perform marriage, therefore, she lodged a complaint against Nilesh for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on 2.12.2016, Nilesh performed the marriage with respondent no.2 at Bouddha Vihar, Khairi, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. Respondent no.2 then went to cohabit with Nilesh and her in-laws. Nilesh was serving in Indian Army. He used to visit his wife-respondent no.2 oftenly. Nilesh used to come on leave on five days at Nagpur and thereafter he used to return to his work place. It is the case of the complainant that her in-laws i.e. the applicants herein used to harass her as to why the articles were brought by her, instead of that cash amount should have been brought towards the dowry from her father. The applicants used to humiliate her and ill-treat her on that count. The complaint shows that the complainant started residing separately from her in-laws from 31.3.2017 i.e. soon after her marriage. It further shows that as the rape case was lodged by the complainant prior to her marriage against Nilesh, in July-2017 her in-laws harassed her to withdraw the complaint lodged by her prior to her marriage. Therefore the complainant went under depression and she consumed insecticide i.e. all-out liquid. In the circumstances, the complainant lodged the present complaint on 18.7.2017.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that no offence is made out even if the allegations in the first information report and in the statements of the witnesses are accepted at their face value. It is stated that the registration of the impugned first information report is skillful effort of respondent no.2 to rope the applicants in criminal case in order to pressure and compel to bring respondent no.2 at her husband's service place. It is contended that the husband of respondent no.2 is in Indian Army and there is no government accommodation to the army serving at Rajouri J & K and, therefore, respondent no.2 was kept in rented premises in Nagpur separately. However, respondent no.2 has lodged a false complaint against her in-laws in order to pressurize them.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the registration of the first information report and preparing the charge-sheet against the applicants. It is submitted that there is no case made out against the applicants to quash the first information report lodged by the complainant.

6. We have carefully gone through the first information report as well as the statements of the witnesses. However, we find that the ingredients of Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 are not made out. The entire story narrated by the complainant does not attract the aforementioned provisions. There are no specific allegations made against any of the applicants. The contents of the statements and the report are of general nature and as such cannot be considered to be sufficient to proceed against the applicants. There is no specific act attributed to any of the applicants. The allegations in the complaint appears to be vague and general in nature.

7. In this context, a