Vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws under Section 498(A) IPC do not suffice for prosecution; specific involvement is required.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.)

The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 11th of October, 2017 passed in complaint case No. 607 of 2017, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners as well as Subhash Kumar (husband of O.P. 2), for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that marriage of the complainant, namely, Priya Priyambada was solemnized with one Subhash Kumar on 3rd of July, 2014. At the time of marriage, parents of the complainant gave Rs. 15,00,000/-(fifteen lakhs rupees), six pieces of rings, chain, furniture and other articles as dowry as per their capacity. It is further alleged that accused persons started demanding one car as a dowry to which the father of complainant expressed his inability to fulfill the same due to his financial condition. After the marriage, when the complainant went to her matrimonial house, all the complaint name accused persons, including the petitioners, started torturing her for the sake of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that they compelled the complainant to commit suicide but with the interference of neighbors, her life could be saved. Thereafter, upon receiving the information, father of the complainant along with some relatives came there and on advice, the husband of the complainant accompanied her to Barodara, Gujarat. Thereafter, husband of the complainant took her to Delhi where they started leading a happy conjugal life. It is further alleged that after sometime, the petitioners started provoking the husband upon the complainant upon which her husband started torturing her and committing immoral activity with the complainant. It is further alleged that after a passage of time, her husband developed illicit relationship with other girl and when the complainant protested, her husband told that he loved the said girl and his marriage was solemnized without his consent. When she raised objection, on provocation of the petitioners, her husband assaulted the complainant, snatched all her articles and ousted her from the house by saying that without fulfillment of the said demand of four wheeler, he will not keep her. It is further alleged that the complainant made all her effort to live with her husband but all went in vain, then the present complainant.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners are in-laws of the complainant/opposite party No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law, whereas, petitioner No. 2 is brother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is widow ailing lady and she resides with her younger son (petitioner No. 2) at Kerala right before the marriage of the complainant, where he was working as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. They have no concern with the mess and business of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. They live separately from them. The petitioner No. 2 only attended the marriage of his brother (husband of the complainant) and soon thereafter, he returned at his place of service on 06.07.2024. It is further submitted that after her marriage, complainant went to her sasural at Madhubani but during the said living period, her behavior was not good towards her in-laws as well as her husband. She fails to appreciate the sentiments of her husband and after staying about one month she returned at her maika as per her wish with her brother and there after she never returned at her sasural. Petitioners made several attempts to pacify the complainant to live with her husband to lead happy conjugal life but failed due to adamant attitude of the complainant. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 has also filed a maintenance case bearing No. 128 of 2017 before the Family Court, Muzaffarpur in which maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-per month was allowed in her favour. The husband of the com