Vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws under Section 498(A) IPC are insufficient to compel them to undergo trial, emphasizing the need for clear allegations to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 8.1.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 1947 of 2018 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna whereby cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.

2. As per the allegation in the FIR, the complainant got married to the son of the petitioners, namely, Narendra Pandit on 6.6.2014 and on account of marriage, her parents’ made total expenditure of 15 lakhs including purchase of ornaments and furniture worth Rs. 6,00,000/-(six lakh). Marriage on scheduled date could not be performed due to sudden demand of a four-wheeler. After marriage her Bidayi happened on 7.6.2014 and from the beginning date of marriage, complainant’s husband and sasural members started to torture her for demand of five lakh or one four wheeler. After 15 days, complainant left her matrimonial home with her brother. It is further alleged that husband of the complainant came to Patna for treatment of his father and on asking, complainant helped him with Rs. 50,000/-in treatment. In the year 2016, on the occasion of Holi, her husband came to her parental house to take her back to her sasural but she again returned to her parental house on very next date due to ill treatment by sasural members. It is further alleged that father of the complainant expired in the month of September, 2016 but no one came from her sasural to attend Sharadh Karm.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. They are innocent and have committed no offence and have been implicated wrongly and falsely in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Complainant herself is a panchayat teacher and son of the petitioners is an unemployed person and their parents arranged marriage of both the parties without any gift or dowry.

4. It is submitted that complainant is not interested in restitution of her conjugal life as she is a school teacher and she not even visited her matrimonial home during school vacations and festival holiday. It is unbelievable fact that after marriage, demand of four wheeler was made by an un-employed husband, who has no capacity even to maintain it. Allegedly, she was assaulted brutally at her matrimonial home but no complaint was made in this regard anywhere, nor she was even been treated anywhere. It is further submitted that these two petitioners had hardly any occasion to stay with the complainant after her marriage. With an intention to implicate each and every member of the family of her husband, the complainant had made totally ornamental allegations.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in course of inquiry in complaint case, altogether four witnesses were examined i.e complainat, her mother, her sister and Manik Pandit. They have stated that petitioners have tortured the complainant for non-fulfillment of four wheeler or cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-but in FIR nowhere date of demand or manner of torture is mentioned. Complaint case was lodged on 5.5.2018 after four years of marriage, in retaliation of matrimonial case, filed by her husband in the year 2016.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail. By way of filing counter affidavit, learned counsel for the opposite party has brought the fact on record that both the petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant and they have received Rs. Five lakhs cash in their hand. After marriage, they also demanded cash and four wheeler from the opposite party no. 2. They have suppressed their age in the petition. They tortured the victim lady (O.P. No. 2) mentally and physically. Cognizance has rightly been taken against the pet