Vague and omnibus allegations against family members in dowry cases do not suffice for criminal liability; specific incidents must be established.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The applicants question the legality and validity of the First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) dated 03-10-2020 bearing Crime No.449/2020 registered with Sadar Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 354 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “ IPC ”) and consequent filing of Regular Criminal Case No.2722/2021 pending on the file of 15^th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.

3. FACTUAL MATRIX :

(a) Applicant No.1 is the elder brother-in-law of the complainant/non-applicant No.2, and applicant No.2 is the wife of applicant No.1. The marriage of non-applicant No.2 and accused No.1- Mujahid Iqbal was solemnized on 10-11-1999 as per rites and rituals in their community. Accused No.1-Mujahid Iqbal went to Saudi Arabia for employment. In the year 2004, he had been to the Dubai for employment. At that time, non-applicant No.2 resided with him in Dubai with his children. In 2017, non-applicant No.2 came to Nagpur.

(b) Thereafter, on 03-10-2020, non-applicant No.2-informant lodged a report against the applicants and accused No.1-Mujahid Iqbal, alleging that they have subjected her to cruelty on account of the demand of dowry. It is also alleged that applicant No.1-Jafar Iqbal, assaulted her and her children and drove them out of the house. He was having ill eye on her elder daughter and with an ill intention tried to touch her. Based on the said FIR, the offence came to be registered. Hence, the applicants moved this Court to invoke its inherent powers.

4. It seems from the record that by order dated 28-02-2023, the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed by this Court.

5. Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently contended that the allegations are baseless and vague and intend to tarnish the image of the applicants in society and mentally harass them and specifically applicant No.1 who is a retired Engineer from the Public Works Department. A bare perusal of the entire charge sheet would reveal that no offence is made out against the applicants. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint pertain to the incidents in 2017 and before that, when non-applicant No.2 was residing with her husband in Dubai. She never lived in Nagpur till 2017. She has not explained the delay caused in lodging the FIR, and the FIR does not disclose the cognisable offence against the applicants. No specific allegations have been made against the applicants to connect them to the alleged crime. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence as alleged are not made out against the applicants. Hence, he urged to allow the application.

6. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2022) 6 SCC 599 , particularly paragraphs Nos.10, 13, 14, and 17.

7. Per contra, Mr. H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. Sanket Bhalerao, learned Counsel for non- applicant No.2/complainant strenuously resisted the application on the ground that the contents of the complaint prima facie denote that a cognisable offence was made out and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and accused No.1-Mujahid Iqbal. Therefore, the applicants failed to make out a case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cri. P. C. Non- applicant No.2 has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the “DV Act”) against accused No.1-Mujahid Iqbal, and the same is pending. The charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the applicants cannot seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court; so, to determine the controversy, it would be proper to conduct the trial. The allegations in the FIR are specifi