IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty and dowry offences – If wife maintains patience and silence with solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness – It shows her sincerity towards her marital life.
(2) Findings recorded by criminal court are not binding on civil court and vice versa – Both cases are to be decided on their own merits.

ORDER

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.1318/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Morena, District Morena (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that earlier one M.Cr.C.No.58515/2022 was filed seeking similar relief but it was done without any authority from the applicants. Accordingly, by separate order passed today M.Cr.C. No.58515/2022 has been dismissed as it was filed without any authority.

3. The undisputed facts are that applicant No.1- D.R. Tiwari is husband, applicant No.2-V.R. Tiwari is elder brother-in-law (sic), applicant No.3- Smt. Meena Tiwari is mother-in-law, applicant No.4- Ram Babu Tiwari is father-in-law, applicant No.5- Smt. Sarla Dandotiya is sister of mother-in-law (sic) and applicant No.6- Banwari Lal Dandotiya is husband of respondent No.5.

4. Respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR alleging that in the year 2015 she got married to applicant No.1 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Her father had given cash amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, apart from household articles as per the list annexed with the FIR. After her marriage, she used to visit her matrimonial house. After one year of her marriage, she gave birth to one girl child, namely, Manaya Tiwari. Thereafter, applicants started expressing their anguish by alleging that they are not satisfied with the dowry given by her father. They were insisting that respondent No.2 should bring an additional amount of Rupees Five Lacs in cash and a Honda car. When she replied that financial condition of her father is not as such where he can give additional dowry, then applicants started abusing her filthily and also treated her with physical and mental cruelty. When she informed her parents about the cruelty meted out to her, then her parents also tried to convince and persuade applicants but they did not agree and were continuously harassing her mentally and physically. Earlier, she had also made a complaint in Police Station Baakad, District Pune (Maharashtra), however, all the applicants are continuously abusing her filthily in the name of mother and sister and are insisting that she should bring additional dowry from her parents otherwise they will not keep her with them. Accordingly, FIR was lodged.

5. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that it is well established principle of law that for prosecuting near and dear relatives of husband, allegations must be specific and clear. Vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to prosecute them. It is submitted that applicants No.5 and 6 have nothing to do with the family affairs of applicant No.1. It is submitted that applicant No.1 has instituted a petition for grant of divorce and only thereafter the FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast. It is also submitted that applicant No.1 has also lodged a criminal complaint against respondent No.2 as well as her father and brother for offence under Sections 384, 389, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.2. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that so far as applicants No.5 and 6 are concerned, even their own daughter-inlaw has lodged an FIR against them. By referring to FIR in Crime No.463/2021 registered at Police Station- Station Road Morena, District Morena, it is alleged that even real daughter-in-law of applicant No.5 and 6, namely, Neetu Dandotiya has lodged an FIR against applicants No.5 and 6 as well as her husband, namely, Prashant @ Bholu Dandotiya for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Furthermore, applicants No.5 and 6 were continuously interfering in day-today life of respondent No.2 wh