Court quashed FIR due to lack of specific allegations against in-laws, emphasizing protection against misuse of Section 498-A IPC in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R.’) of Mahila P.S. Case No.47 of 2021 dated 04.05.2021 registered under Sections 3 41 , 323, 498-A, 506 , 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘I.P.C.’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is to assault the informant along with other relative/family members due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and thus by committed cruelty upon O.P. No.2 on various occasions.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is married sister-in-law of O.P. No.2 and petitioner no.2 is husband of petitioner no.1. It is pointed out that petitioner no.1 is living separately with petitioner no.2 being wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized much before the marriage of O.P. No.2 with brother of petitioner no.1. It is submitted that the implication appears prima facie only out of the relation, as petitioner no.1 is the sister of husband of O.P. No.2. It is also submitted that the allegation qua alleged cruelty appears very much general and omnibus and moreover the matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and they also decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to Annexure-R/1 of the counter affidavit, which was filed by opposite party no.2.

5. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted that in view of aforesaid fact as parties settled their dispute, continuing with present criminal proceeding before the trial court would only amount to abuse of the process of court of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.

6. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has affirmed the factum of compromise as submitted above by learned counsel appearing for petitioners.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the Abhishek’s case (supra) which reads as under:

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in- laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-la