General allegations in matrimonial disputes without specific details do not warrant criminal prosecution, emphasizing the need for particularized accusations to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1250 of 2014 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 4 98(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short I.P.C.) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short D.P. Act) has been taken against the petitioners.

2. Mr. Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1, Bhagwat Pathak, is no more and his prayer has been withdrawn from this petition. Now, the instant petition is to be decided in respect of other petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are married sisters of the husband of the O.P. No. 2, petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and petitioner no. 5 is cousin elder brother of the husband of the O.P. No. 2. In the entire complaint, there is no specific allegation with regard to the alleged demand of Rs. 25 lakhs and the allegation of making sarcastic and taunting remarks upon the complainant by the petitioners is general and omnibus and the paragraph no. 2 of the complaint clearly shows that after the marriage, the complainant stayed at her sasural only for 15 days in three visiting terms, which shows that complainant had stayed at her sasural for very short time. As per the allegation made by the complainant, the petitioners forcefully administered poison to the complainant, as a result of which she was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, but the said allegation is also general and omnibus against the petitioner nos. 2 to 5. Further, no any document particularly with regard to the medical treatment of the complainant at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh was filed with the complaint before the inquiry Court, which could have been easily produced if the complainant remained under treatment at the said hospital. He further submits that the husband of the complainant is younger brother of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who were married during the relevant period of occurrence and both were residing in their respective sasural and petitioner no. 5 is cousin brother of the petitioner no. 4, who has no concern with the family affairs of the complainant's husband. It is further submitted that if the petitionesr are subjected to face trial for the offences under Section 4 98(A) of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act for the allegations which are completely general and omnibus, it would be complete harassment to them. In support of these submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of which details are being given below with reproducing the relevant paragraphs:-

(i) Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015 and the relevant Paragraph No. 19 upon which reliance has been placed is as under:-

19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in- laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or